ilip  Mi«'tf0«l  #tiiiia 


f 


$^M 


Or  m 


OF  ^■^SiOL.S 

Rev  Drs.  Hawes,  Spring,  and  ?ermilye; 


AND 


KEY.  MESSES.  CHILDS  &  PARKER : 

KEPUBLTSIIED  FROM 

f Ijr  fell)  |ovlt  dbsfi-luv, 

AV  I  T  H      N  O  T  K  S  ,     A  N  D     A     REVIEW 

TO  WHICH    IS    ADDED 

A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  MANCHESTEE  CASE. 


For  the  Word  of   God,   and   for  the   testimony  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Rev.  1  :  9. 


HARTFORD,  CONN. 


AJ.i<:X'R    CALHOUN    &    CO.,    PUBLISHERS. 

1860. 


^,  '^  ,\\ 


:.^^* 


sA 


^4  ^t  Sljpniogfra/  ^ 


X 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


\. 


Di'visiofi..L-J/\-l  '■-        ' 
Section. ■■•i\\'0  C-O 


Vi 


%L 


£s;ou  stttj*^ 


LETTERS 


OF 


\i\.  Drs.  Hawes,  Spring,  and  ?ermil!E 


AND 


REV.  MESSRS.  CHILDS  &  PARKER: 

REPUBLISHED   FROM 

f|c  |to  |0rk  (Sterrber, 

AVITH     ^OTES,     AND     A    REVIEW 

TO   WHICH   IS   ADDED 

A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  MANCHESTEE  CASE. 


.,'    — "For  the  Word  of  God,  and  foe  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ." — 

Bev.   1  :  9. 


HARTFOED,  CONN. 

ALEX'R    CALHOUN    &    CO.,    PUBLISHERS 

1860. 


PRELIMUT ART  REMARKS. 


The  publication  of  this  pamphlet,  though  demanded,  has  been 
for  some  time  delayed ;  and  it  would,  perhaps,  have  been  withheld 
altogether  had  not  recent  developments  seemed  clearlj  to  call  for 
it.  It  is  no  grateful  task  to  review  the  acts  of  venerable  men  to 
whom  we  have  been  bound  by  many  ties,  but  from  whom  we  are 
now  constrained  solemnly  and  strongly  to  differ.  ISTo  age,  no 
relation,  no  reputation,  can  outweigh  the  claims  of  Divine  truth. 
Nor  are  we  wholly  without  hope  that  when  the  full  force  of  these 
facts  is  fairly  before  our  fathers  and  brethren,  they  may  see  and 
admit  the  peril  which  now  threatens  us. 

Of  the  churches  of  New  England  we  have  the  right  to  ask  the 
earnest  and  candid  attention.  Their  interests  are  most  deeply 
concerned.  It  is  easy  to  dismiss  the  whole  subject  with  a  smile,  or 
a  sneer,  or  with  condemnation.  Some  will  do  so ;  but  no  intelli- 
gent, faithful  and  conscientious  Christian.  Those  who  regard  the 
character  of  men  more  than  the  honor  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — 
who  value  the  reputation  of  their  pastors  more  than  the  truth  of 
Grod — who  place  the  peace  of  the  church  above  its  lymity — will  con- 
demn this  publication.  But  if  any  man  who  believes  there  is 
anything  in  the  christian  system  worth  contending  for — anything 
in  the  faith  of  our  Puritan  fathers  worth  holding  to — can  read 
calmly  the  facts  here  established  and  not  feel  that  there  is  cause  for 


alarm,  deep  and  sorrowful ;  if  not  for  ourselves,  for  our  children ;  we 
have  no  more  to  say.  It  is,  perhaps,  due  to  the  public  that  a  fact 
should  here  be  stated  which,  to  every  fair  mind,  will  be  an  addi- 
tional justification  of  the  re-issue  of  these  letters.  Certain  religious 
papers  of  considerable  influence  in  New  England  have  published 
article  upon  article  on  one  side  of  the  controversy,  whilst  studi- 
ously withholding  from  their  readers  the  evidence  upon  the  other 
side.  How  far  this  is  just,  manly  or  Christian,  every  honorable 
mind  will  judge  for  itself  In  this  pamphlet  the  statements  of  both 
sides  will  be  found.  If,  therefore,  any  reader  should  differ  from 
the  conclusions  of  the  reviewer,  he  has  before  him  the  material  for 
his  own  judgment.  For  ourselves  we  have  little  to  gain.  Our 
heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  our  New  England  Zion  is  that 
she  may  be  saved.  If  to  this  end  this  publication  should  be  blessed, 
even  in  the  least,  we  shall  find  abundant  recompense  and  abund- 
ant consolation  in  all  the  obloquy  it  may  incur.  Whether  we 
are  right  or  wrong  will  soon  be  revealed ;  but  we  beg  to  say,  once 
for  all,  in  behalf  of  ourselves  and  of  our  brethren  in  the  faith 
throughout  New  England,  to  those  who  are  wont  to  meet  our  con- 
victions by  ridicule  and  abuse,  that  these  convictions  are  quite  too 
deep  and  too  solemn  to  be  met  by  any  such  arguments.  If  we  are 
wrong,  this  is  not  the  way  to  convince  us.  If  we  are  right,  it  is  a 
vain  and  a  thankless  w^ork  thus  to  endeavor  to  silence  us.  In  the 
fear  of  God,  and  of  the  tribunal  where  we  and  those  who  differ  from 
us  must  soon  meet,  we  submit  these  pages  as  our  humble  testimony 
'•  to  the  faith  of  God's  elect.'' 


On  the  eleventh  day  of  January  1860,  Mr.  Edwin  Pond  Parker 
was  ordained  and  installed  Pastor  of  the  South  Congregational 
Church  of  Hartford,  Conn.  Mr.  Parker  was  a  graduate  of  Bangor 
Theological  Seminary ;  and  had  been  recommended  as  "sound  in 
theology"  by  the  Eev.  Dr.  Pond,  Professor  in  that  Institution.^ — 
The  council  by  which  he  was  installed  was  probably  one  of  the 
ablest  and  most  respectable  that  could  be  gathered  in  New 
England.  It  was  composed  of  Pastors  and  Delegates  from  eleven 
Churches,  and  Professors  from  two  Theological  Seminaries.  The 
examination  was  public,  and  in  accordance  with  the  invitation 
given,  was  attended  by  a  large  audience.  Of  course  the  facts 
which  transpired  were  fairly  public  property.  There  could  be  no 
impropriety  or  reasonable  ground  of  complaint  in  the  use  of  those 
facts,  provided  they  were  of  importance  to  the  community. 

A  few  weeks  after  the  ordination  the  following  letter  appeared 
in  the  public  prints.  This  letter  was  written  by  the  Eev.  Thos.  S. 
Childs  of  Hartford,  to  a  friend  by  whom  it  appears  to  have  been 
sent  to  two  or  three  pajDers  for  publication :  § 

*  For  the  facts  stated  ia  this  pamphlet,  which  do  not  appear  ia  the  letters  of  the 
Observer,  we  are  indebted  chiefly  to  the  Independent ;  the  Boston  Recorder ;  the 
Congregationalist,  and   the  Presbyterian  Expositor. 

§  Much  has  been  made  of  this  circulation  of  the  letter ;  but  it  seems  to  us  a  very 
small  matter.  The  question  is,  are  the  statements  true  ?  not,  how  far  have  they  been 
spread  ? 


THE    LETTER. 

My  Dear  Brother; — You  ask  me  for  some  accoimt  of  the 
examination  of  the  young  man  who  has  just  been  installed  over 
the  South  Church  in  Hartford.  I  give  you  the  impression  left  on 
my  mind,  with  a  sad  heart.  This  church,  as  you  know,  is  one  of 
the  oldest,  and  has  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  soundest  in  the 
State. 

The  examination  was  public  ;  a  large  audience  was  present,  and 
of  course  the  views  of  the  young  man  were  no  secret. 

He  rejected  emphatically  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. He  was  not  clear  on  the  Trinity,  doubted  as  to  the  use  of  the 
word  Person,  and  stated  that  the  unity  of  God  meant  one  personality. 

All  sin  and  holiness  were  aiSrmed  by  him  to  be  voluntary. — 
God  has  no  holy  nature.  Man  has  no  sinful  nsvture.  Every  mau 
has  ability  (in  the  sense  of  "  adequate  power")  to  fulfil  the  com- 
mands of  God,  even  to  sinless  perfection  in  the  present  life. 

The  gospel  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adult 
heathen.  Some  are  undoubtedly  saved  without  it.  God  will  give 
all  men  a  fair  chance,  and  Christ  died  with  the  same  design  for  all. 
Hence  if  all  men  have  not  had  a  fair  chcoice  in  this  life,  they  will 
have  it  after  death.  The  candidate  stated  openly,  that  he  inclined 
to  the  belief  that  after  death,  and  before  the  final  judgment,  there 
was  a  state  (Hades)  for  all  souls — where  some  who  had  died  im- 
penitent— some  even  who  had  rejected  Christ  in  this  life — would 
have  a  new  offer  of  Christ  and  salvation,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  be  saved : — so  that  if  called  to  the  death-bed  of  an  im- 
penitent sinner,  and  knowing  that  he  had  but  a  short  definite 
time  to  live,  he  would  not  shut  him  up  to  faith  in  Christ  within 
that  time,  or  final  ruin. 

These  views  were  in  direct  conflict  with  the  articles  of  the 
Church  to  which  every  private  member  is  rec{uired  to  give  his  as- 
sent. Yet  they  were  not  regarded  by  the  Council  as  a  disqualifi- 
cation for  the  pastorship. 

I  hope  that  I  am  not  a  vain  alarmist.  Far  be  it  from  me  to 
utter  a  word  which  should  needlessly  disturb  the  peace  of  our 
churches.  But  can  any  candid  mind  look  at  the  events,  so  often 
now  occurring,  and  not  feel  that  there  is  a  23rocess  going  on,  silently 
but  surely,  which  by  another  generation  must  entirely  change  the 
character  of  our  churches  ? 

And  one  of  the  saddest  things  about  it  all  is,  that  if  any  man  is 
found  to  express  anxiety  about  these  things — if  any  man  arises, 
who  feels  it  to  be  a  solemn  duty  to  God  to  j^rotest  against  the  in- 
coming errors,  his  reward  is  overwhelming  ridicule  as  a  man  be- 
hind the  age,  or  violent  denunciation  as  a  troubler  of  Israel. 

"Well — God  is  the  judge.  The  day  is  coming  which  will  reveal 
every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.     My  strong  conviction  is,  that 


unless  there  shall  soon  be  a  mighty  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  day  is  not  distant  which  will  witness  a  more  extensive  and  ap- 
palling apostasy  in  New  England,  than  we  have  ever  yet  seen — 
and  that  apostasy  will  be  into  Universalism.  May  (rod  in  His 
infinite  mercy  avert  the  catastrophe. 
^  Your  Brother  in  the  faith  and  work  of  Christ.  C. 

The  New  York  Observer,  in  publishing  the  substance  of  this 
letter,  said: — 

"It  is  in  harmony  with  what  we  hear  from  various  quarters.  The  fact  that  a  respect- 
able number  of  ministers,  in  any  part  of  our  country,  would  consent  to  induct  such  a 
teacher  as  this  candidate  into  the  ministry,  to  preach  such  another  gospel  as  the  above, 
is  enough  to  fill  with  painful  apprehension  the  mind  of  every  Christian  who  believes 
the  truths  there  denied  to  be  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  *  *  * 
Apostasies  are  generally  gradual.  Scarcely  any  great  defection  in  church  history, 
however,  has  been  so  rapid  as  that  which  is  now  rushing  to  its  crisis  in  New  England . 

To  turn  back  the  tide  of  corruption,  to  strengthen  the  things  that  remain,  to  save 
the  rising  generation  from  being  borne  away  into  the  mire  and  misery  of  Pelagianism 
and  Universalism,  is  a  work  that  should  command  the  active  and  untiring  energies  of 
every  sound  man  in  the  church.  Pastors  should  lift  up  no  uncertain  or  trembling 
voice  at  such  a  time  as  this.  The  people,  who  love  the  faith  of  the  noble  fathers  of 
New  England,  whose  wholesome  doctrines  have  been  incorporated  as  the  preserving 
salt  in  almost  the  whole  body  of  sound  churches  in  this  country,  the  people  ought  to 
take  the  alarm,  and  by  watchfulness,  prayer  and  faithful  labor,  fortify  themselves, 
their  families  and  their  neighbors  against  the  inroads  of  this  moral  pestilence.  Daily 
we  behold  the  gathering  evidence  that  a  new  reformation,  the  Reformation  of  the  19tb 
century,  must  be  preached  and  the  "Word  of  God,  the  doctrines  of  the  cross,  the  faith 
of  the  Reformers  and  the  Puritans,  the  system  known  as  the  Evangelical,  must  be 
re-established  in  the  heart  of  the  people,  to  the  expulsion  of  that  rationalism,  or  semi- 
infidelity,  that  now  threatens  the  ruin  of  the  churches." 

The  publication  of  this  letter  produced  a  very  marked  impres- 
sion both  in  and  out  of  New  England.  On  the  one  hand  it  was 
regarded  as  furnishing  unexpected  and  alarming  evidence  of  defec- 
tion from  fundamental  truth;  on  the  other  it  was  violently 
denounced  as  slanderous  or  ridiculed  as  absurd.^ 

In  the  Observer  of  March  8th,  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  appeared 
on  the  part  of  the  council  with  the  following  letter  which,  with 
some  variations,  was  also  published  in  the  Boston  Recorder.  § 

*  The  Independent  pronounced  it  a  "  calumnious  article"  whose  author  was  to  be 
"held  to  a  strict  account."  The  Congregationalist  assailed  it,  its  author  and  publishers, 
n  an  editorial  surpassing  anything  we  ever  remember  to  have  seen  in  its  violation  of 
all  the  courtesies  of  religious  life. 

§  Dr.  Samuel  Harris,  Professor  in  the  Bangor  Seminary,  also  published  an  article 
in  behalf  of  the  council  in  the  Recorder  of  March  1st.  Dr.  Spring  appeared  over  his 
separate  signature,  in  the  Presbyterian  Expositor  of  March  15th.  Whatever  is  impor- 
tant to  the  case  in  these  communications  will  be  found  in  the  notes. 


For  the  New  York  Observer. 

Hartford,  March  2d,  1860. 

Messrs.  Editors: — You  have  noticed  the  examination  of  Eev. 
Mr.  Parker,  now  pastor  of  the  South  Church  in  this  city,  which 
occurred  on  the  11th  of  January.  TFe,  the  undersigned  mem- 
bers of  the  Council,  request  you  to  publish  the  following  article ; 
and  justice  to  the  candidate  in  question,  to  the  Council  which  or- 
dained him,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  religion  in  this  city  and 
state,  demand  this  expression  of  our  condemnation  of  the  state- 
ments made  in  your  issue  of  Feb.  23d,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Parker. 
They  who  were  present  at  the  examination  of  the  candidate,  or 
know  anything  of  it,  need  not  be  told,  that  your  statements  (or 
the  statements  you  reproduced  from  an  "intelligent"  correspond- 
ent) were  a  succession  of  misrepresentations,  exaggerations,  sup- 
pressions and  fiilsities.  Your  sources  of  information  were  strange- 
ly corrupt,  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  you  should  so  unguarded- 
ly allow  them  to  find  an  outlet  through  your  columns.  It  is 
greatly  to  be  deplored,  that  such  careless,  needless  interruptions 
of  fellowship  are  consummated.  A  misrej)resented  and  maligned 
minister,  a  calumniated  and  aggrieved  ministry,  and  an  indignant 
Christian  community — these  are  the  results  of  a  hastily  published, 
or  reproduced  letter. 

Your  article,  headed  "New  Gospel  in  New  England,"  as  a  ivhole^ 
is  adapted  to  make  only  wrong  impressions,  and  in  j^nrts,  is  utterly 
untrue.  Mr.  Parker  read  a  somewhat  long  and  j)articular  creed  be- 
fore the  Council,  which  was  followed  by  a  long  and  careful  exami- 
nation, chiefly  in  the  line  of  the  articles  of  faith  adopted  by  the 
Church. 

The  creed  referred  to  is  before  us,  and  this,  with  our  own  recol- 
lections, will  enable  us  to  state  what  is  true  in  the  case,  and  to  cor- 
rect what  is  untrue. 

The  first  charge  refers  to  "Inspiration."  "He  denied  emphati- 
cally the  ver]3al  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures."  This  implies  that 
the  candidate  held  such  views  as  would  invalidate  the  authority 
of  Scripture.     Hear  his  creed  : 

"The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  *  *  *  -were  written  by  men 
inspired  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  are  a  ?(?ii/ — a  body,  of  which  tho  various  books 
are  the  members  ;  each  book  has  a  polarity  towards  the  cross  of  Christ ;  hence  all 
this  Scripture  is  inspired.  It  is  the  "Word  of  God."  While  the  Logos  is  the  Re- 
vealer  and  the  Revelation,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  distinctive  inspiring  Power,  enabling 
the  sacred  penmen  to  give  an  adequate  expression  of  the  truth,  whether  revealed  to 
them,  naturally  apprehended  by  them,  or  simply  communicated  through  them." 

Whether  this  implies  verbal  inspiration  or  not,  it  contains  all 
that  is  necessary  to  make  the  Scriptures  a  complete  and  authorita- 
tive rule  of  faith. 

Only  one  gentleman  proposed  questions  to  the  candidate  on  this 
topic.     It  was  then  nearly  dark ;  the  answers  were  very  short,  and 


9 

thorouglily  consistent  with  tlie  article  copied  above.     How  unjust 
was  the  charge  then ! 

The  next  statement  is — "He  was  not  clear  on  the  Trinity :  doubt- 
ed as  to  the  use  of  the  word  'person.'  "     Hem'  his  creed: 

"  I  believe  in  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  believe  in 
only  one  God.  (Art.  1.)  Christ  is  the  God-human,  the  humiliation  of  the  eternal 
Logos.  The  proof  of  this  doctrine  is  found  only  in  the  Bible,  It  is  a  rational  doc- 
trine ;  and  was  chiefly  held  in  the  Apostolic  and  patriarchal  church.  I  believe  in  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

On  being  questioned  as  to  his  views  of  the  Sabellian  theory  of 
one  God  manifesting  himself  under  a  three-fold  name,  he  expressly 
discarded  it  as  untrue,  and  admitted  fully,  as  understood  by  the 
Council,' the  common  orthodox  views  of  the  Trinity.  He  said  the 
word  "person"  was  often  misused  and  misunderstood. 

The  third  charge  is — The  candidate  distinctly  affirmed  that  "God 
has  no  holy  nature,  and  man  no  sinful  nature." 

Yet  he  said  in  his  creed,  "God  is  essentially  and  eternally  holy." 

Now  the  statement  in  your  columns  distinctly  contradicts  this, 
and  is  suited  to  make  a  false  impression.  The  candidate  did  not 
choose  to  ring  changes  on  the  word  "nature";  but  regarding  all 
holiness,  and  all  sin,  ap  predicable  only  of  voluntary,  choosing 
mind,  he  could  not  predicate  holiness  of  the  simple  being  or  con- 
stitution of,the  Deity,  nor  sin  of  the  passive,  inert  nature  of  man. 
B  ut,  lest  we  may  not  exactly  represent  him,  let  the  candidate 
speaETor  himself: 

"Psycholocjically,  I  believe  holiness  is  the  supreme  choice  of  the  mind,  by  which  the 
person  is  devoted  to  the  universal,  rather  than  to  his  individual  interests  and  good.  I 
believe  that  by  nature,  men  are  sinners.  That  such  is  the  corruption  of  the  soul,  that 
each  person,  obeying  the  influence  of  the  depraved  appetites  and  desires,  will  sin  so 
soon  as  he  comes  to  act  consciously  of  the  right  and  wrong.  I  do  not  believe  that 
man  is  blameworthy,  either  for  his  nature  or  its  hereditary  corruption." 

Who  does  believe  so  ?  or  who  can  believe  otherwise  than  this 
article  expresses  ?  The  next  thing  charged  is  this — "The  gospel  is 
not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adult  heathen."  The 
candidate  said  no  such  thing.  He  explicitly  stated,  "there  is  no 
salvation  without  Christ!"  He  believed  that  some  heathen,  as 
some  other  persons  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ,  may  be  re- 
newed and  saved  through  him,  or  on  account  of  what  he  has 
done  :  but  '•'■all  hy  Christ  P''  This  is  no  new  doctrine,  nor  is  it  any 
heresy.  Watts,  Emmons,  Dwight,  and  other  theologians  held  it, 
and  it  is  taught  in  several  confessions  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Ee- 
formed  Church — the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  others.^ 

*  Their  letter  in  the  Recorder  contains  the  following  in  addition  : — "  As  to  what 
the  letter  cliarges,  that  the  candidate  holds  that  every  man  has  ability  in  the  sense  of 
'  adequate  power  '  to  fulfill  the  commands  of  God  " — let  that  speak  for  itself.  It  is 
accounted  no  deatlly  heresy,  at  least  in  this  part  of  the  country,  to  hold  that  man  has 
power  to  do  what  God  commands  him  to  do  ;  or,  that  he  cannot  be  justly  blamed  or 
punished  for  not  doing  impossibilities." 


10 
The  grossest  charge  of  all  is  this : 

"The  candidate  openly  stated  that  lie  inclined  to  the  belief,  that  after  death  and  be- 
fore the  final  judgment  there  was  a  state  (Hades)  for  all  souls  where  some  who  had 
died  impenitent,  and  some  who  had  rejected  Cliriat  in  this  life,  would  have  a  new  offer 
of  Christ,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  be.  saved:  so  that  if  called  to  the 
death-bed  of  an  impenitent  sinner,  and  knowing  that  he  had  but  a  short  time  to  live, 
he  would  not  shut  him  up  to  faith  in  Christ  within  that  time  or  to — final  ruin." 

Now  there  are  several  very  sad  charges  made  in  this  statement, 
not  one  of  which  was  lield  as  an  opinion  by  the  candidate.  He 
explicitly  stated,  that  though  he  sometimes  inclined  to  the  belief 
that  the  Bible  spoke  of  an  intermediate  state  or  place  of  departed 
spirits,  called  Hades,  still  he  was  wholly  undecided  in  the  matter. 
He  repeatedly  stated,  that  for  such  as  knew  their  duty  and  '■'■rejected 
Christ  in  this  life,"  he  believed  there  was  no  future  probation. 
This  was  his  statement: — That  for  such  as  had  never  heard  of 
Christ,  had  lived  and  died  in  ignorance  of  religious  things,  the 
'possihilitfj  that  there  might  be  a  future  probation,  sometimes  entered 
his  mind  in  the  form  of  a  liope,  but  never  as  yet  as  a  settled  con- 
viction. He  said  that  it  floated  in  his  mind  as  a  thing  that  per- 
chance might  be,  and  claimed  a  place  in  his  thoughts,  not  in  his 
convictions.  It  was  regretted  by  the  council  that  his  mind  was  in 
such  an  attitude  in  regard  to  this  subject,  but  they  could  see  in  it 
no  sufficient  reason  to  refuse  ordination. 

As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  allegation,  "that  if  called  to  the 
death  bed  of  an  imjDenitent  sinner,"  &c.,  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
he  explicitly  stated  that  he  should  not  feel  influenced  or  authorized 
to  broach  the  supposition  of  a  future  probation,  either  in  public  or 
in  private,  to  an  impenitent  man.  "Whatever  my  secret  hope 
might  be,  I  should  hold  out  no  such  tinreliahle  promises  or  hypoth- 
esis." It  may  be  added  that  the  candidate  publicly  signified  his 
assent  to  such  of  the  articles  of  faith  adopted  in  the  church  of 
which  he  is  now  pastor,  as  were  read  to  him.  It  is  to  be  presumed 
he  did  it  seriously  and  sincerely. 

With  that  spirit  of  holy  horror,  which  sees  fanaticism  in  a  manly 
frank  way  of  stating  the  truth,  we  have  no  sympathy.  It  is  said 
of  the  Eoman  army,  that  except  the  shedding  of  blood,  a  stranger 
could  not  distinguish  their  exercises  from  their  battles.  Did  your 
correspondent,  in  his  simplicity,  mistake  the  animated  discussions 
of  that  council  in  Hartford  for  veritable  antagonisms  ?  He  is  mis- 
taken. Not  a  drop  of  blood  was  spilt,  and  candidate  and  council 
retired  from  the  field  on  terms  of  tried  fellowship.  The  wail  of 
sorrow,_  which  arises  from  your  correspondent  at  the  imagined 
apostasies  of  Connecticut  churches,  is  so  dolorously  soloistic,  as  to 
sound  very  ludicrously  about  here  !  There  is  no  foundation,  save 
in  a  morbid  imagination,  for  the  lugubrious  lamentations  of  said 
reporter. 


11 

The  facts  are  now  stated.  How  far  they  differ  from  those  stated 
in  the  letter,  the  public  must  judge.  No  motives  are  imputed,  no 
comments  offered.  No  reflections  are  cast  upon  your  correspond- 
ent. He  must  be  left  to  his  own  reflections,  which  we  can  imagine 
must  be  not  of  the  pleasantest  character.  We  conclude  with  the 
earnest  wish,  that  while  he  stands  up  manfully  for  the  truth,  he 
will  not  bring  false  accusations  against  his  brethren ;  and  that 'the 
next  time  he  attends  a  council  of  Congregational  ministers,  assem- 
bled to  ordain  a  Congregational  pastor,  he  will  hear  with  a  more 
candid  spirit,  and  report  with  a  more  accurate  pen.  '^ 

J.  Ha  WES, 
Samuel   Spring. 


*Di\  Spring,  in  his  letter  to  the  Expositor,  says,  that  the  impression  made  by  Mr. 
Childs'  letter  is  "  totally  at  variance  with  the  truth/'— that  he  "  cither  stolidly  misap- 
prehended or  wilfully  misrepresented  his  (Mr.  Parker's)  views"— vouches  for  Mr. 
Parker's  orthodoxy,  and  states  that  "  the  articles  of  faith  adopted  by  the  church  of 
which  he  is  now  the  pastor,  were  each  and  all  openly  accepted  bv  him,  not  merely  for 
substance  ©f  doctrine,  but  literally  and  in  full."  He  notices  o'nly  the  one  point  of 
probation  after  death.  He  says,  "The  council  were  at  first  somewhat  disturbed  by  it, 
but  more  particular  investigation  satisfied  them  that  the  suspected  sentimeat  was  not  an 
opinion  or  belief  adopted  by  the  candidate,  but  only  a  floating  thought,  which  lie  rather 
wished  were  true,  than  firmly  believed.  He  did  not  "  state  openly  that  he  inclined  to 
the  belief,"  that  there  would  be  a  place  and  a  mode  of  probation  "beyond  this  life,  for 
any  who  had  died  impenitent ;  but  that  he  had  earnestly  desired  to  hope,  that  in  some 
peculiar,  exceptional  cases,  where  there  had  been  no  knowledge,  and  of  course  no 
rejection  of  Christ,  there  might  be  a  probability  that  the  mercy  of  God  would  pro- 
vide a  "Tray  by  which  the  sin  of  ignorance  might  be  pardoned,  even  beyond  the 
grave.  And  when  inquired  of  what  was  the  foundation  for  such  a  hope,  he  stated  that 
the  passage  in  1st  Peter,  3:19,  might  possibly  be  regarded  as  furnishing  some  grounds 
tor  such  an  opinion.  He  said,  however,  explicitly,  that  for  those  who  knowingly 
rejected  Christ  in  this  life,  it  was  his  firm  belief  that  there  was  and  could  be  no  proba- 
tion beyond  that  enjoyed,  and  such  should  be  his  uniform  and  unqualified  teaching." 

The  following  is  the  substance  of  Prof.  Harris'  defence. 

"He  (Mr.  P.)  rejected  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,"  but  distinctly 
affirmed  his  belief  in  the  "  plenary  inspiration  "  of  the  whole  Bible  and  of  every  part 
of  It.  He  2t'as  "  perfectly  clear  "  in  his  statements  on  the  Trinity,  distinctly  dis- 
claiming the  doctrine  that  the  distinction  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  one  of 
manifestation  only,  and  affirming  that  it  is  an  eternal  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  and 
that  each  of  the  Three  is  very  God.  He  stated  precisely  and  clearly  the  Ortho- 
dox doctrine.  What  he  said  of  the  term  persons  was  the  statement,  familiar  I  had 
supposed  to  all  theologians,  that  the  term  person  is  not  applied  to  the  distinctions  in 
the  Trinity  in  its  full  ordinary  sense  ;  that  God  is  not  one  person  in  the  same  sense 
in  which  he  is  three  persons.  "He  affirmed  all  sin  and  holiness  to  be  voluntary," 
using  the  term  ivill  in  the  broader  sense  of  Bellamy  and  Edwards,  and  not  in  the  re- 
stricted sense  which  assigns  to  the  will  the  function  of  volitions  only.  He  affirmed 
that  man's  nature  is  corrupt,  the  occasion  of  the  uniform  certainty  of  sin  from  the 
beginning  of  moral  action,  but  declined  to  predicate  sin  of  the  nature  itself  on  the 
ground  that  a  man  is  not  accountable  for  a  nature  that  is  born  in  him.  He  affirmed 
distinctly  that  all  men  are  sinners  by  nature.  He  made  the  usual  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  ability,  and  affirmed  natural  ability  to  obey  the  law.  He  defined 
natural  ability  to  be  "  the  possession  of  faculties  adequate  to  obedience." 

As  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen,  he  distinctly  and  repeatedly  affirmed  that  no 
human  being  can  be  saved  except  through  the  atonement  of  Ciirist  and  regeneration 
by  tne  Holy  Ghost.     He  expressed  his  belief,  however,  that  some  heathen  have  in 


12 

MR.  CHILDS'   REPLY. 
For   the    New   York   Observer. 

THE    ORDINATION    IN    HAETFORD. 

Messrs.  Editors: — If  the  writer  of  the  letter  referred  to  in  the  Obser- 
ver of  Feb.  23d  desired  to  awaken  a  spirit  of  theological  inquiry  in 
New  England  he  seems  likely  to  succeed.  From  Bangor  to  New 
Haven  the  depths  are  stirred.  Out  of  this  we  ferventh'-  hope 
good  may  come. 

In  regard  to  the  letter  itself,  allow  me  one  or  two  remarks.  It 
was  written  to  a  friend — a  Congregational  minister — in  reply  to  a 
request  for  some  account  of  the  examination.  The  writer  of  the 
letter  did  not  send  it  to  any  paper  for  publication.  This  is  not 
said  to  avoid  any  just  responsibility  whatever.  It  is  stated  simply 
as  a  fact,  and  to  meet  certain  statements  from  other  quarters.  As 
to  the  spirit  of  the  letter  we  are  quite  willing  to  leave  it  to  be  com- 
pared with  the  replies. 

Two  replies  have  appeared  ;  one  in  the  Boston  Recorder,  under- 
stood, by  an  editorial  note,  to  have  been  from  Rev  Dr.  Harris,  Pro- 
fessor in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Bangor,  and  father-in-law  of 
the  candidate;  the  other  over  the  signatures  of  Drs.  Hawes  and 
Spring.  It  is  with  the  latter  that  we  now  have  to  do.  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  these  gentlemen  should  ^  far  have  forgotten  their 
position  as  to  have  indulged  in  such  exhibitions  of  feeling. — 
Truth  can  afford  to  be  calm.  Hard  words  and  hard  names  are  no 
answer  to  facts. 

A  word  to  yourselves,  Messrs  Editors,  to  relieve  somewhat  the 
pain  of  the  reflections  these  venerable  fathers  have  cast  upon  you. 
We  assure  you  that  this  "Christian  community"  is  not  all  "indig- 
nant"— the  Christian  "ministry"  does  not  feel  itself  "calumniated 
and  aggrieved" — and  whether  the  "minister"  has  been  "misrepre- 
sented and  maligned"  is  a  point  to  be  determined  when  the  evi- 
dence is  in. 

this  life  been  renewed  by  the  Spirit  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel,  and  so  pre- 
pared to  receive  Christ  whenever  made  known  to  them.  *  *  * 

As  to  the  intermediate  state,  instead  of  affirming  that  "  some  who  had  rejected 
Christ  in  this  life  would  have  a  new  offer  of  Christ  and  be  saved,"  in  the  next,  the 
candidate  explicitly  and  repeatedly  declared  the  contrary  belief.  But  he  said  that  in 
considering  the  case  of  the  heathen  and  others  who  died  without  hearing  the  Gospel,  he 
had  in  his  perplexity  sometimes  conjectured  that  they  might  have  an  offer  of  mercy  in 
the  intermediate  state ;  yet  he  repeatedly  affirmed  that  this  conjecture  had  never 
amounted  to  a  belief  that  such  an  offer  would  be  made,  nor  could  he  even  say  he 
doubted  the  commonly  received  doctrine ;  but  only  that  it  was  a  conjecture  and  a  diffi- 
culty which  had  perplexed  him  and  prevented  his  affirming  without  any  qualification, 
his  belief  that  there  is  absolutely  no  provision  for  the  offer  of  mercy  to  persons  of  this 
class  after  death.  He  also  stated  repeatedly  that  he  found  no  reliable  evidence  in  the 
Bible  justifying  this  conjecture  ;  that  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  uniformly  concentres 
on  the  duty  of  repentance  and  faith  now,  giving  no  intimation  whatever  of  hope  to  any 
beyond  the  grave  ;  that  therefore,  he  should  feel  bound  to  preach  according  to  this 
scriptural  pattern." 


13 

We  now  come  to  the  case  in  hand — the  ordination  of  Mr.  Par- 
ker. The  question  is  this  :  "Were  the  position  and  views  of  Mr. 
Parker,  as  explained  hy  himself  on  his  examination,  such  as  to  jus- 
tify his  ordination  and  installation  over  an  orthodox  Congregational 
church  of  Connecticut  ?  " 

Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  appeal  to  his  creed.  This  is  their  main 
reliance.  In  regard  to  this  we  observe  (1)  That  there  are  no  men 
on  earth  who  ought  to  know  better  than  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring 
the  utter  insufficiency  of  a  written  creed  to  prove  a  man's  sound- 
ness in  the  faith  in  New  England.     Do  they  need  illustrations  ? 

(2)  If  that  creed  was  sufficient  and  decisive  why  the  long  and 
tedious  examination  that  followed?  What  was  the  use  of  that 
oral  examination  at  all,  unless  it  was  to  reveal  in  ivhat  loay  the 
candidate  interpreted  his  creed?  With  all  due  deference  to  these 
venerable  men  we  beg  leave  to  take  the  candidate's  own  interpre- 
tation of  his  creed  rather  than  theirs.  And  this  is  precisely  what 
was  done  by  the  writer  of  the  letter.  This  is  what  we  shall  insist 
on  doing.  The  reading  of  the  creed  excited  no  special  attention 
— it  was  defective — it  foreshadowed  some  of  the  subsequent  devel- 
opments ;  but  it  was  not  until  the  oral  examination  was  fairly 
opened  that  the  very  serious  errors  and  defects  of  the  candidate's 
views  were  revealed. 

(3)  Subsequent  events  throw  some  light  upon  this  point,  if  we 
are  not  misinformed,  Mr.  Parker's  first  sermon  after  his  ordination 
was  from  the  words,  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them ;"  and 
unless~he  was  grievously  misunderstood  by  intelligent  minds,  the 
burden  of  that  sermon  was  this — a  man  is  not  to  be  judged  by  his 
creed  or  his  speculative  faith,  but  by  his  life.  As  an  illustration  of 
his  meaning  he  maintained  that  in  his  judgment  the  author  of 
that  fiction,  "the  Conflict  of  Ages,"  was  just  as  good  a  man  and 
just  as  reliable  a  religious  teacher  as  if  he  had  never  held  or  pub- 
lished those  speculations !  Are  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  ready  to 
endorse  this  also  ? 

Thus  much  for  the  force  of  a  written  creed. 

In  addition  to  the  creed,  these  gentlemen  rely  upon  their  mem- 
ory. Let  us  give  this  all  due  weight,  remembering  that  it  is  called 
into  exercise  six  weeks  after  the  transactions  occurred.  The  writer 
of  the  letter  relied  upon  ivritten  notes  of  the  examination  taken  down 
at  the  time  from,  the  candidate! s  oimi  mouth. 

There  is  one  thing  which  will  strike  most  minds  as  quite  re- 
markable in  the  memory  of  these  venerable  men.  They  under- 
take to  remember,  after  an  interval  of  weeks,  not  only  what  ivas 
said,  but  what  was  not  said,  through  a  tedious  and  at  times,  con- 
fused examination  of  three  or  four  hours.  And  they  undertake  to 
remember  exactly  alike.  The  thing  is  simply  a  moral  impossibil- 
ity ;  and  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  that  it  fails  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  These  good  men  have  quite  overdone  the  matter  at  this 
point. 


14 

Now  for  the  statements  of  the  letter. 

1.  The  candidate  rejected  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. This  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  Here,  then,  the  letter 
stands  justified.  But  the  defendants  appeal  to  the  creed  ;  and 
say  that  but  "one  gentleman  j^roposed  questions  to  the  candidate 
on  this  topic."  Here,  at  the  outset,  is  an  illustration  of  what  we 
have  just  said  as  to  the  memory  of  the  witnesses.  They  affirm  pos- 
itively and  without  the  least  hesitation,  that  "only  one  gentleman 
proposed  questions  to  the  candidate  on  this  topic."  There  were  at 
least  two,  who  examined  him  at  different  times.  Now  when  the 
memory  of  the  witnesses  "agreeing  together"  fails  upon  so  palpable 
a  point  as  this — the  asking  and  answering,  not  of  a  single  question, 
but  of  a  series  of  questions — we  submit  whether  it  does  not 
throw  a  doubt  upon  their  equally  positive  assertions  on  other 
points. 

They,  however,  fix  the  time  of  this  examination,  and  this  indi- 
cates the  gentleman  to  whom  they  refer. 

Now  what  is  the  evidence  of  that  gentleman  ?  He  affirms,  and 
is  ready  to  affirm,  if  need  be,  under  oath,  the  substantial  truth  of 
the  following  statement :  To  the  question,  "Do  you  believe  in  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures?"  the  candidate  declined  to 
give  a  direct  answer,  but  replied  that  he  did  not  know  that  he  ex- 
actly' understood  what  was  meant  by  plenary  inspiration.  To  the 
question,  "Are  you  prepared  to  admit  verbal  inspiration  ?"  he  re- 
plied, with  an  emphasis  more  significant  even  than  the  words,  "I 
am  prepared  to  reject  it!  " 

Now  this  is  a  case  directly  in  point  in  regard  to  the  creed.  The 
venerable  gentlemen  tell  us  to  "  hear  his  creed."  We  do  hear  it; 
it  sounds  pretty  well ;  we  hear  him  say  that  "  all  this  scripture  is 
inspired."  But  we  want  to  know  what  he  means  by  inspiration ; 
we  have  heard  in  these  days  of  other  writings  being  inspired — we 
want  to  know  what  Mr.  Parl^er  means  by  ins]3iration ;  he  says  it  is 
such  an  influence  as  enables  the  penman  to  "give  an  adequate 
expression  of  the  truth  " — we  are  troublesome  we  know,  but  we 
want  to  understand  again  what  he  means  by  an  "adequate  expres- 
sion of  truth."  We  presume  that  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  think 
they  have  given  an  "adequate  expression  of  the  truth"  in  their 
rejoinder ;  but  we  do  not  think  it  is  inspired  ;  so  we  ask  the  candi- 
date in  the  plain  old  language  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Evangel- 
ical faith,  if  he  believes  in  plenary  inspiration ;  and  he  does  not 
know  what  it  means  ;  and  we  ask  him  if  he  believes  in  verbal  in- 
spiration ;  and  then  we  have  an  answer. 

We  must  say,  however,  that  we  were  not  surprised  that  the 
Council  were  not  disturbed  by  the  candidate's  views  of  inspiration  ; 
we  were  j^repared  for  this  by  previous  experience.  We  had  seen 
a  man  examined  and  ordained,  by  a  council  composed  in  part  of 
the  same  men,  who  stated  openly  that  there  were  parts  of  the  Bible 


15 

whicli  were  not  inspired — that  the  Holy  Spirit  suffered  them  to  re- 
main because  He  saw  they  wouldn't  do  any  hurt — and  we  had  heard 
the  venerable  Dr.  Hawes  express  the  highest  satisfaction  at  the  ex- 
amination of  that  gentleman.  From  that  time  forth  we  have  ceased 
to  be  surprised  at  any  errors  to  which  this  venerable  man  may 
have  given  his  sanction. 

2.  As  to  the  Trinity.  The  letter  says  he  loas  not  clear ;  he 
doubted  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  person ;  and  stated  that  the 
unity  of  God  meant  one  personality.  The  last  two  statements  are 
exegetical  of  the  first.  We  will  go  back  from  these  to  that.  Now 
for  the  proof.  To  the  question  by  Dr.  Spring,  "  What  do  you 
mean  by  the  unity  of  God?  "  the  candidate  answered  with  some 
hesitation,  but  in  these  very  words,  "I  rnQd^^n  one  personality.'''  This 
point  the  venerable  gentlemen  who  undertake  to  "state  what  is 
true  and  to  correct  what  is  untrue,"  do  not  touch. 

"  He  doubted  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  Person,''''  says  the  letter. 
"  Hear  his  creed,"  cry  the  defendants.  We  do  hear  it,  gentlemen, 
but  we  do  not  hear  in  it  the  first  letter  of  the  word  "Person." 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ?  Will  you  tell  us,  if  the  candidate 
loas  clear  on  the  Trinity,  wh}-,  in  a  deliberately  written  article 
upon  this  great  subject,  he  utterly  ignores  the  tri-personality  of 
the  Godhead ! 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Congregational  churches  of  Con- 
necticut sayi3 :  "  In  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  be  three  persons 
of  ona^ubstance,  power,  and  eternity,"  and  it  declares  the  "  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  to  be  the  foundation  of  all  our  communion 
with  God,  and  comfortable  dependence  upon  him."  We  would 
reverently  but  earnestly  suggest  to  these  venerable  fathers  of  the 
Church  to  beware  what  countenance  they  give  to  the  undermining 
of  this  great  doctrine. 

The  explanation  which  Dr.  Harris  gives  of  the  candidate's  posi- 
tion upon  this  subject,  Avhich  position  he  affirms  to  be  "  perfectly 
clear,"  is  striking  and  to  us  original.  He  thinks  that  all  the  3^oung 
man  meant  to  say  was,  "  that  God  is  not  one  person  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  he  is  three  persons ; "  a  statement  which  he  sup- 
poses familiar  to  all  theologians.  Now  we  are  not  a  professor  of 
theology  as  Dr.  Harris  is ;  but  this  statement  which  he  supposes 
"  familiar  to  all  theologians  "  is  entirely  new  to  us.  We  are  quite 
familiar  with  the  expression  :  "  God  is  not  one  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  he  is /Aree ; "  but  that  "he  is  not  one  person  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  he  is  three  persons,"  is  a  fact  which  we  do  not 
remember  to  have  ever  before  seen  affirmed  or  denied. 

We  might  safely  leave  this  point  of  clearness  on  the  Trinity 
here.  There  was  an  incident,  however,  in  the  examination,  quite 
too  much  in  point  to  be  passed  over.  The  candidate  had  read  his 
creed  upon  the  subject — he  had  been  examined  and  cross-examined 
at  length  upon  it — the  work  was  nearly  through.     Dr.  Hawes  rose 


16 

and  said:  '^AU  that  you  have  .said,  sir,  could  he  said  hy  a  S(d)ellian — 
do  you  receive  that  doctrine  ? ''  The  reply  of  the  candidate  was 
equally  remarkable.  "  I  do  not  know  as  I  understand  what  Sabel- 
lianism  is.    I  have  tried  to  find  out,  but  I  have  not  been  successful." 

Now  whatever  answers  may  have  been  given  to  leading  questions, 
to  break  the  full  force  of  this  development,  we  submit  that  the 
case  is  made  out.     The  candidate  was  not  clear  on  the  Trinity, 

3.  The  statements  of  the  letter  in  regard  to  sin  and  holiness,  the 
nature  and  power  of  man,  are  really  admitted  by  all  the  reepond- 
dents.  At  a  future  time,  if  the  way  be  open,  we  hope  to  take  up 
their  own  statements  and  show  how  utterly  opposed  they  are  to 
the  faith  of  Evangelical  Christendom,  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Connecticut  churches,  and  to  the  Word  of  God. 

"VVe  content  ourselves  now  with  giving,  on  the  strength  of  our 
notes  and  the  evidence  of  the  Examiner,  the  substance  of  the  can- 
didate's statements  on  these  points.  He  did  distinctly  affirm  that 
there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  sinful  or  holy  nature.  Man  was 
sinful  through  nature,  not  naturally  sinful.  But  who  does  not  see 
the  door  of  boundless  errors  opened  here  ?  Who  does  not  see  that 
this  statement  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  affirmation  that  man 
is  born  innocent  and  sinless  ?  Did  not  Adam  become  sinful 
through  nature  ?  Did  not  the  fallen  angels  become  sinful  through 
nature,  or  ^%y  nature?  "      * 

The  gentlemen  who  have  undertaken  this  defence  would  leave 
the  impression,  we  presume,  that  Mr.  Parker  holds  the  honest  old 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  And  the  members  of  the  South  Church 
in  Hartford  have  no  doubt  read  with  great  delight  the  expressions 
of  his  creed  "by  nature,"  "corruption  of  the  soul,"  "depraved 
appetite,"  "hereditary  corruption,"  &c. 

Now  we  have  one  simple  question  to  ask,  and  if  these  venerable 
gentlemen  will  answer  it,  it  will  be  more  to  the  point  than  a  vol- 
ume of  exj^lanations.  Is  that  "corruption  of  the  soul,"  that 
"  hereditary  corruption,"  sinful  in  Mr.  Parker's  view? 

■i.  To  a  question  by  Dr.  Spring,  the  candidate  replied  "  that  God 
did  not  require  of  man  what  he  had  no  ability  to  perform."  To 
the  question  in  another  form  he  said  he  should  answer  differently, 
according  to  the  use  of  the  word  ability.  (Q.)  "  Take  the  word 
ability  in  its  proper  sense  of  '  adequate  power,'  do  you  hold  that 
man  has  ability  in  this  sense  to  meet  the  requirements  of  God  ?  " 
(A.)  "I  do." 

(Q.)  "  Are  you  prepared  to  carry  out  that  position  to  its  logical 
results,  and  hold  that  man  has  ability  to  obey  God  perfectly  in  the 
present  life  ?  "     (A.)  "  Yes,  sir." 

5.  Another  charge  of  the  letter  is,  "the  gospel  is  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adult  heathen.  Some  are  undoubt- 
edly saved  without  it."  The  candidate  not  only  declared  this  in 
general,  but  he  made  a  specific  application  of  it :  "I  have  no  doubt," 


17 

said  he,  "  that  Socrates  went  to  heaven,"     The  statement,  whether 
true  or  false,  important  or  unimportant,  is  undeniable. 

6.  The  letter  stated  as  a  doctrine  held  by  the  candidate  that 
"  Christ  died  with  the  same  design  for  all  men."  He  not  only- 
stated  this  in  general,  but  he  affirmed  in  particular  that  "  Christ 
died  with  the  same  design  for  Judas  Iscariot  as  for  the  Apostle 
Paul."     This  the  gentlemen  do  not  deny. 

7.  We  now  come  to  the  "crisis"* — Mr.  Parker's  views  of  the 
future  state.  And  we  shall  meet  the  whole  matter  by  a  simple 
statement  of  facts  which  we  stand  ready  to  verify  before  any 
tribunal. 

(1.)  The  germ  of  his  views  was  in  his  written  creed.  Why  did 
not  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  ask  us  to  "  hear  his  creed  "  on  this 
point  ?  ; _.  ._:M 

(2.)  After  an  examination  upon  the  subject  which  had  gone  on 
to  weariness,  with  questions  and  cross  questions,  with  explanations 
and  counter  explanations,  the  candidate  did  say  frankly  and  expli- 
citly, "  I  wish  to  conceal  nothing;  I  will  state  ray  position  ujwn  this 
whole  subject.  I  INCLINE  TO  THE  BELIEF  that  there  is  after  death  a 
state  (Hades)  for  all  souls,  good  and  bad,  where  the  good  are  happy, 
and  where  some  who  have  died  impenitent,  may  have  a  chance  of 
salvation,"  &c.  In  reply  to  inquiries  he  stated  that  he  supposed 
this  salvation  would  be  in  connection  with  the  means  of  grace — 
the  offer  of  -Christ  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(3.)^e  not  only  stated  it ;  he  argued  it ;  feebly  and  doubtfully 
indeed,  but  he  argued  it.  He  said  he  thought  there  were  passages 
of  Scripture  which  pointed  to  such  a  state,  e.  g.,  "  Christ  preached 
to  the  spirits  in  prison." 

(4.)  He  not  only  argued  it,  he  called  upon  the  Council  to  prove 
that  the  doctrine  was  not  true.  "  Will  any  one  quote  to  me  a 
scriptural  proof  against  this  view  ?  " 

(5.)  When  asked  to  reconcile  his  doctrine  with  the  articles  of 
the  church  over  which  he  was  about  to  be  installed,  and  which 
articles  affirm  that  men  are  to  be  judged  "  according -to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body,"  he  replied  that  he  should  not  interpret  the 
"  deeds  done  in  the  body,"  as  referring  strictly  to  the  present  life. 

(6.)  He  applied  his  theory,  not  merely  to  some  who  "had  never 
heard  of  Christ,"  but  to  those  who  had  heard  and  died  unbeliev- 
ing. Surely  the  gentlemen  cannot  have  forgotten  the  case  so  sol- 
emnly put  and  so  unequivocally  answered :  "Suppose,  sir,  you 
were  called  to  the  death  bed  of  an  impenitent  man,  and  knew  that 
he  had  but  ten  minutes  to  live ;  would  you  tell  him  that  he 
must  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  within  that  time  or  be  lost  ?  " 

*  This  was  the  word  used  by  Mr.  Parker  in  his  creed,  to  denote  that  point  of  time 
beyond  the  grave,  up  to  which  he  was  understood  as  entertaining  hope  for  some  who 
died  impenitent. 


18 

(A.)  ''I  would  uot!  "  Nor  can  they  have  forgotten  the  earnest 
exclamation  which  burst  from  the  lips  of  the  venerable  Dr. 
Ilawes,    "  Then  he  vjould  never  repentl  " 

It  is  true  the  candidate  did  say  that  his  doctrine  was  "  not 
expressly  taught  in  Scripture  " — it  is  true  he  admitted  that  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  the  Bible  shuts  men  up  to  the  present ;  but  this  only 
makes  the  matter  worse,  and  is  a  most  significant  comment  upon 
his  views  of  inspiration.  In  the  most  solemn  moments  of  his 
ministerial  life — in  the  very  article  of  death — standing  to  usher  an 
immortal  soul  through  the  awful  portals  of  eternity,  he  declares  that 
he  ivill  not  shut  that  soul  up^  for  its  everlasting  hopes^  to  the  p)oint  of 
time  to  which  he  admits  the  ivhole  burden  of  God^s  word  shuts  him  up  I 

Gentlemen  of  the  Council ;  is  there  here  no  practical  issue  of  the 
faith  you  have  ordained  ?  Does  it  not  pierce  to  the  very  heart  of 
the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God  ?  It  is  not  "  enough  " — it 
is  solemn  trifling  for  you  to  tell  us  that  there  was  something  else 
also,  which  he  said  he  would  not  do.  There  was  this  which  he 
said  he  would  not  do,  and  this  which  takes  hold  upon  the  whole 
matter  of  the  eternal  destiny  of  men. 

The  denial  of  Drs.  Ilawes  and  Spring  here  amounts  simply  to 
this — that  Mr.  Parker,  when  called  to  the  death  bed  of  a  sinner, 
would  not  deliberately  sit  down  and  comfort  him  with  the  hope  of 
a  future  probation.  If  this  is  "  enough  "  for  these  worthy  men, 
we  are  very  sure  it  is  not  enough  for  the  Christian  community. 
Nor  is  it  the  question  ; — it  is  not  whether  Mr.  P.  would  positively 
preach  a  future  probation,  but  whether  he  would  positively  preach 
Christ  received  noio  as  the  sinner's  only  hope  !  He  declared  that  he 
would  not.  Whether  this  be,  as  the  Observer  says,  "  another  gos- 
pel "  or  not,  let  the  world  judge.  It  is  not  the  gospel  we  preach ; 
it  is  not  the  gospel  Christ  preached. 

And  yet  these  gentlemen  did  not  hesitate  to  present  a  man  in 
this  state  of  mind  as  a  qualified  guide  and  teacher  of  a  flock  of 
Christ !  We  recall  that.  If  the  reports  are  true,  which  from 
various  quarters  are  now  floating  through  the  community,  that 
secret  session  of  the  Council  was  not  as  harmonious,  nor  the  final 
vote  as  unanimous,  as  the  statements  of  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring 
would  seem  to  imply.  If  there  be  any  foundation  for  these  reports, 
gentlemen,  you  did  hesitate,  you  doubted,  you  feared.  You  hs- 
tened  to  earnest  explanations  and  fervent  appeals  from  the  theolog- 
ical instructor  and  near  friend  of  the  candidate — you  hoped,  and 
you  yielded. 

Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  have  been  pleased  to  charge  the  author 
of  the  "Letter"  with  a  succession  of  misrepresentations,  exagge- 
rations, suppressions,  and  falsities.  They  have  been  pleased  to 
state  that  all  "  who  were  present  at  the  examination,  or  knew  any- 
thing of  it,"  understand  this  to  be  so. 


19 

Now  we  call  upon  tiiem  to  throw  open  the  doors  of  that  secret 
session,  and  let  us  know  the  impression  made  by  the  examination 
upon  the  minds  of  the  fathers  and  brethren  there.  Tell  us  if  it  be 
true  that  votes  were  obtained  for  the  candidate,  not  on  the  strength 
of  his  examination,  but  in  spite  of  that  examination,  and  on  the 
ground,  simply  and  solely,  of  the  explanations,  apologies  and  ap- 
peals of  his  theological  instructor  and  friend  !  Tell  us  if  you  had 
a  divided  vote  at  last,  and  give  us  the  names  of  the  men  who  re- 
fused to  go  with  you  in  your  final  deed !  Let  us  summon  them — 
and  we  do  summon  them,  wherever  they  are — to  give  their  testi- 
mony in  this  case.  The  cause  of  truth  demands  it.  Give  us,  gen- 
tlemen, the  ivhole  and faithfulldsiory  of  tliat  secret  Council;  and  we 
consent  to  leave  the  case  to  the  decision  of  the  public ! 

A  word  more  and  we  yield  the  pen.  We  give  place  to  no  man 
in  all  due  respect  for  the  age,  position,  and  reputation  of  the  men 
whose  statements  we  have  felt  called  upon  to  review.  But  the 
truth  of  Christ  is  more  sacred  than  the  person  of  any  man.  In 
our  inmost  soul  we  believed  that  that  truth  was  imperilled — we 
believe  so  still ;  and  though  every  member  of  the  Council  should 
sign  the  letter  of  .Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring — which  they  never  will 
— we  appeal  the  case  to  coming  time  and  a  higher  tribunal. 

You  have,  Messrs.  Editors,  my  name,  which  you  are  at  liberty  to 
give,  whenever  it  shall  be  essential  to  the  cause  of  Truth, 

Hartford,' Afarch  12,  1860. 


In  some  editorial  remarks  connected  with  the  above  letter  the 
Observer  stated  that  the  Eev.  Dr.  Vermilye,  Professor  of  Theology 
in  the  Seminary  at  East  Windsor,  Ct,,  was  on  the  Council ;  and 
called  for  his  statement.  Dr.  Vermilye  responded  in  the  Observer 
of  March  29th— 

STATEMENT  OF  EEV.  DR.  VEEMILYE. 

Messrs.  Editors : — As  my  name  has  been  mentioned  in  the 
Observer,  and  elsewhere,  in  connection  with  the  recent  ordi- 
nation at  Hartford,  it  seems  due  to  truth,  that  I  should  explain 
my  position  in  that  case.  As  you  intimate,  I  was  a  member  of 
the  ordaining  council,  and  on  the  examination  of  the  candidate 
was  constrained  to  cast  my  vote  in  the  negative.  I  differed  with 
great  reluctance  from  venerable  and  respected  brethren :  but  my 
judgment  and  conscience  permitted  me  to  take  no  other  ground, 
than  that  of  opposition  to  the  ordination,  under  the  circumstances. 
And  subsequent  reflection  has  not  led  me  to  doubt  of  the  pro- 
priety and  necessity  of  my  vote. 

In  regard  to  the  discussion  to  which  the  ordination  has  given 
rise,  perhaps  the  foregoing  statement  may  be  sufficient  to  indi- 


20 

cate  my  view  of  the  foots.  It  is  hardlj  necessary  to  say,  that  they 
appeared  to  me,  in  all  essential  par ticrdars^  as  your  correspondent  rep- 
resents them.  I  will,  however,  add  that  I  have  read  his  last  commu- 
nication with  some  oare,  and  am  prepared  to  affirm  its  substantial 
truth.  There  are  two  or  three  of  his  statements  which  I  cannot 
distinctly  confirm,  as  my  attention  was  partially  diverted  during 
that  part  of  the  questioning.  Their  truth  however,  with  a  single 
exception,  is  conceded,  I  believe,  by  the  other  writers :  while  similar 
though  not  identical  answers  were  given  by  the  candidate  at  other 
times.  As  it  respects  the  last  point,  that  of  probation  after  death, 
— (which  it  may  be  said  occupied  more  than  half  the  time  of  the 
examination,)  according  to  my  recollection,  his  statements  are  entirely 
accurate.  In  my  judgment  they  leave  a  fair  and  just  impressioji 
of  the  candidate's  views,  as  defined  by  himself  before  the  Council. 
And  if  the  anxiety  manifested  by  more  than  one  member  during 
the  public  examination,  is  any  index,  it  is  the  impression  which  they 
were  naturally  calculated  to  give.  It  was  exceedingly  painful  to 
me  to  reach  the  conclusion,  that  such  were  his  views  ;  but  I  did  not 
see  how  to  avoid  it. 

At  present  I  limit  myself  to  these  brief  statements.  But  if  cir- 
cumstances should  demand  it  hereafter,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  state 
more  fully  my  reasons  for  the  vote  I  was  constrained  to  give. 

Robert  Gr.  Yermilye. 

East  Windsor  Hill,  Ct.,  Marclt  2M. 


April  5th,  Drs.  Spring  and  Ilawes  replied  to  Mr.  Childs. 
For  the  New  York  Observer. 

REV.  DRS.  SPRING  AND  HAWES  REJOINDER  TO  REV. 

MR.  CHILDS. 

Messrs.  Editors : — We  are  constrained  to  ask,  once  more,  for  the 
indulgence  of  your  columns,  and  for  the  last  time  on  this  subject, 
that  we  may  disabuse  if  possible,  your  own  minds,  and  those  of 
your  numerous  readers,  of  the  errors  which  might  very  naturally 
be  imbibed  from  an  implicit  reception  of  the  article  in  your  issue 
of  22d.  inst.,  headed,  "The  Recent  Ordination  in  Hartford." 
We  know  not  from  what  sources  your  correspondent  has  gathered 
his  impressions  of  the  manner  in  which  his  attack  upon  the  Council 
and  the  candidate  is  received.  We  can  assure  him  that,  with  very 
few  exceptions,  both  his  spirit  and  his  statements  meet  with  gen- 
eral and  unqualified  disapprobation.  It  would  not  be  surprising 
if  those  who  are  eagerly  watching  for  symptoms  of  heresy  in  the 
New  England  churches  and  their  ministry,  should  hail  with  pleas- 
ure the  assistance  of  a  respectable  ally ;  but  he  may  believe  us 
when  we  say,  that  this  sort  of  approval  will  afford  him  but  Httle 


21 

comfort  when  he  comes  to  learn  that  his  course  in  this  matter  is 
"Widely  looked  upon  as  an  unaccountable  expression  of  perverse 
and  determined  suspicion. 

Your  correspondent,  in  speaking  of  our  letter  is  pleased  to  say, 
"It  is  to  be  regretted  that  these  gentlemen  should  so  far  have  for- 
gotten their  position  as  to  have  indulged  in  such  exhibitions  of 
feeling."  We  are  not  aware  that  we  gave  utterance  to  anything 
unbecoming  in  that  communication.  If  anything  in  it  has 
offended  him,  it  may  be  well  for  him  to  inquire  whether  it  was 
not  imperatively  demanded  by  his  unprovoked  assault,  simultane- 
ously made,  in  at  least  three  different  papers,  and  in  parts  of  the  land 
quite  distant  from  each  other.*  This  studied  contiguity,  in  point  of 
time,  of  the  several  and  yet  almost  exactly  similar  blasts  of  the  note 
of  alarm,  could  not  but  awaken  some  surprise,  and  lead  us  to  enquire 
if  we  were  not,  in  common  with  our  brethren  of  the  Council, 
called  upon  to  offer  some  defence.  The  occasion  certainly  would 
not  justify  rudeness,  but  it  did  call  for  a  tone  of  distinct  and  well 
defined  complaint.  Is  it  then  to  be  wondered  at  that  some  dis- 
pleasure should  be  expressed  at  the  fact  that  an  anonymous  attack 
was  made  upon  the  character,  and  regard  for  the  truth,  of  a  large 
Council,  and  upon  the  standing  of  a  young  pastor  j  list  introduced 
by  us  into  the  ministry,  and  henceforth  to  take  part  with  us  in  the 
promulgation  and  defence  of  the  gospel.  If  warmth  were  excus- 
able in  the  discussion  of  such  grave  matters  as  your  correspondent 
presented  in  his  communication,  it  certainly  might  be  pardoned  in 
us,  when  we  were  thus  unkindly  arraigned,  and  charged  with  such 
delinquency  to  our  Master's  cause. 

There  is  one  point,  though  not  a  very  material  one,  on  which  we 
are  willing  to  defer  to  our  brother's  alleged  confidence  in  his  better 
means  of  information.  We  mean  his  statement  that  there  were 
two,  if  not  more,  questions,  or  series  of  questions,  put  to  the  candi- 
date on  the  subject  of  his  belief  in  Inspiration ;  while  our  letter 
says  that  only  one  of  the  Council  questioned  him  on  this  article. — 
We  were  not  careful  to  keep  an  account  of  the  number  of  exami- 
ners, nor  even  who  they  were.  We  felt  that  the  main  object  of 
the  examination  was  sufiicient  to  absorb  our  attention,  and  made 
our  statement  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Parker,  with  respect  to  this 
part  of  it.  He  still  says  that  we  were  correct  in  saying  that  only 
one  took  the  lead  in  questioning  him  on  this  topic,  and  that  if  there 
were  more  inquiries,  they  were  but  interposed  and  occasional,  and 
were  no  serious  interruption  to  the  general  drift.  However,  it  is 
easily  seen  that  this  is  an  unimportant  point.  Whether  one,  or 
two,  or  six  questioned  the  candidate,  is  not  so  important  as  to  learn 
what  his  views  were.  If  our  statement  in  this  minute  particular  be 
incorrect,  to  the  full  extent  even  stated  by  your  correspondent,  let 

*This  is  hardly  candid,  after  the  assurance  that  Mr.  Childs  had  not  made  an  "unpro- 
voked assault  in  three  different  papers." 


09 


the  error  have  its  clue  weight.  We  do  not  peremptorily  deny  that 
it  might  have  been  a  mistake  ;  but  if  it  were,  we  think  it  should 
not  have  been  made  the  basis  of  a  grave  charge  against  our  ver- 
acity, and  insisted  upon  as  invalidating  our  testimony  in  other  par- 
ticulars.* 

Your  correspondent  has  dwelt  at  some  length  upon  what  he 
regards  as  discrepancies  between  Mr.  Parker's  creed  and  his  subse- 
quent "interpretation"  of  it.  We  are  gratified  to  learn  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  your  correspondent,  the  creed  "sounds  pretty 
welL'^t  We  think  more  than  this;  it  sounds  very  well;  and  if  the 
candidate  could — and  we  believe  he  could — ex  animo,  adopt  that 
creed,  we  did  not  feel,  nor  do  we  now  feel,  that  his  correctness  in 
the  faith  should  be  called  in  question.§  His  subsequent  examina- 
tion, or  if  you  please  so  to  call  it,  his  interpretation  of  his  creed, 
was  not  an  absolute  necessity,  but  was  entered  upon  in  compliance 
with  an  honored  and  a  general  custom,  partly  to  afford  the  candidate 
in  such  cases  a  more  full  opportunity  to  explain  his  views,  and  to 
satisfy  any  listeners,  whether  prejudiced  in  his  favor,  or  possibly 
captious,  that  he  is  to  be  relied  on  as  a  firm  friend,  and  able  de- 
fender of  the  truth. 

*  If  Drs.  H.  &  S.  -will  refer  to  Mr.  Childs'  letter  they  will  see  that  he  did  not 
make  "a  grave  charge  against  their  veracity . "  They  had  not  been  as  carefixl  in  re- 
gard to  him.  On  points  where  it  is  now  admitted  that  he  was  correct,  they  charged 
him  with  "a  succession  of  misrepresentations,  exaggerations,  suppressions  and  falsi- 
ties ;"  again  and  again  they  accuse  him  of  falsehood;  they  sneer  at  his  "intelligence ;" 
speak  of  him  as  "a  corrupt  source  of  information,"  as  having  "stolidly  misapprehended 
or  wilfully  misrepresented"  the  facts.  Yet  they  see  nothing  "unbecoming"  in  all  this. 
jVIr.  Childs  had  carefully  forborne  to  retort  their  language.  Even  where  it  was  per- 
fectly evident  that  they  were  wrong,  he  ascribed  their  error  to  their  memory.  It  now 
seems  to  have  been  a  more  serious  thing  than  this.  These  gentlemen  put  "forth  posi- 
tive statements,  for  the  correctness  of  which  they  pledged  the  accuracy  of  their  own 
memories.  They  now  admit  tliat  upon  this  point  they  did  not  remember,  but  relied 
upon  Mr.  Parker  for  the  fact.  The  "point,"  indeed,  is  "not  a  very  material  one,"  but 
it  is  material,  as  a  matter  of  evidence,  to  know  how  many  more  of  their  statements 
were  made  on  the  same  authority. 

It  is  now  no  secret  that  these  A'enerable  gentlemen  are  willing  to  avoid  the  odium 
of  their  first  letter,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  altered  after  leaving  their  liaiids.  This 
can  hardly  avail.  To  most  minds  it  would  be  a  very  serious  question,  what  moral 
right  they  had,  in  so  grave  a  case,  to  allow  a  letter  go  out  of  their  hands  for  revision 
and  alteration.  If  they  gave  their  names  to  Mr.  P.  or  any  other  man,  to  be  used  at 
discretion,  it  is  not  they,  but  the  public,  who  have  the  right  to  remonstrate  at  this  fur- 
ther remarkable  development  in  a  very  remarkable  defence.  It  will  be  observed, 
moreover,  that  in  their  second  letter,  they  fully  endorse  and  defend  the  manner  and 
spirit  of  the  first. 

t  If  these  gentlemen  will  turn  to  Mr.  C's  letter,  they  will  see  that  they  have  again 
misapprehended  it.  His  remark  was  made  in  reference  to  a  particular  article.  In 
regard  to  the  creed  as  a  whole,  he  said  expressly  "it  was  defective,  &c."    See  p.  13. 

^  Why  then  did  these  gentlemen  at  one  time  "call  in  question  the  correctness  of  the 
faith"  of  Dr.  Bushnell,  who  was  willing  to  accept  as  many  creeds  as  could  be  presented 
to  him  ?  On  the  ground  on  which  they  now  stand,  we  do  not  see  by  what  right  they 
ever  accused  Dr.  B.  of  heresy.  Is  it  not  possible  that  some  ministers  in  New  England 
have  obtained  a  general  reputation  for  orthodoxy,  on  the  ground  of  their  opposition  to 
Dr.  Bushnell  on  certain  points,  who,  on  other  points,  are  even  farther  from  the  evan- 
gelical faith  than  Dr.  B.  himself  '. 


23 

And  in  this  place,  if  at  all,  we  might  enter  again  into  the  partic- 
ular items  of  Mr.  Parker's  belief,  as  set  forth  severally,  and  at 
length,  in  the  article  on  which  we  are  commenting.  But  after  the 
full  treatment  of  the  matter  in  our  former  letter,  and  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  pastor  elect  by  the  whole  Council,  with  a  solitary  and 
greatly  esteemed  exception,  this  is  the  less  necessary.  We  content 
ourselves,  therefore,  with  a  few  general  remarks,  rather  as  supple- 
mentary to  our  former  communication,  than  as  a  new  and  indepen- 
dent discussion. 

On  the  subject  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  the 
use  of  the  word  Person  in  the  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  a  sinful  and  holy  nature  in  distinction  from  sinfal  and 
holy  action ;  and  moral  and  natural  ability ;  it  is  perfectly  well 
known  that  differences  of  opinion  exist,  not  only  between  Presby- 
terian and  Congregational  divines,  but  between  the  advocates  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  opposers  on  the  other,  of  some  forms  ol 
these  doctrines,  in  Congregational  churches  reputed  orthodox. 
Nay,  if  we  mistake  not,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  divided  on 
some,  if  not  all,  of  these  topics.  Your  correspondent  has  seen 
Mr,  Parker's  views  from  his  Presbyterian  stand-point ;  and  we  have 
looked  at  them  from  ours.  We  hope  we  love  the  truth,  and  are  reso- 
lute to  defend  it ;  but  we  hare  yet  to  Jearn  that  firmness  in  this 
position  requires  us  to.  "make  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word,"  or 
would  justify  us  in  separating  from  those  whom  we  love  to  claim 
as  our-iiatural  allies  in  the  holy  cause  of  truth  and  God, 

To  the  ver}^  disrespectful  and  unkind  remark,  that  your  corres- 
pondent has  "  ceased  to  be  surj)rised  at  any  errors  to  which  (Dr. 
Hawes)  may  have  given  his  sanction,"  the  writer  of  this  para- 
graph may  be  permitted  to  say  that  he  marvels  at  its  temerity. 
Dr.  Hawes  is  too  well  known,  here  and  elsewhere,  to  be  seriously 
injured  by  such  an  insinuation.  Why  the  pastor  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  Hartford  should  have  seen  fit  to  go  thus  out  of  his 
way,  and  call  up  an  isolated  and  detached  circumstance  connected 
with  another  installation,  and  admitting  of  full  explanation,  were  all 
the  circumstances  known,  is  not  easily  accounted  for.  It  reveals  a 
spirit  more  bitter  and  unlovely  than  we  had  expected  to  witness 
in  our  Brother  Childs.  The  topic  is  dismissed,  however,  with  the 
comforting  reflection  that  Dr.  Hawes  is  fully  competent  to  sustain 
himself,  and  stands  in  no  need  of  the  writer's  feeble  hand  to  repel 
any  such  accusation  from  any  quarter  whatever. 

Allow  us,  Messrs.  Editors,  one  word,  in  closing,  with  regard  to 
the  source  from  which  you  very  honorably  acknowledge  that  you 
received  your  communication.  The  author  occupies  a  position, 
which,  in  our  view,  is  not  the  best  adapted  to  enable  him  to  judge 
with  fairness,  or  even  report  with  impartiality,  the  entire  char- 
acter of  the  examination,  of  which  he  has  given  you  a  distorted 
and  unfair  account. 


24 

He  is  the  pastor  of  a  Presbyterian  church,  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Congregational  churches,  whose  defects,  if  there  be  any,  he  is 
interested  to  discover,  and  when  discerned  or  imagined,  under 
strong  temptations  to  magnify  and  proclaun.  Possibly  this  fact 
may  have  had  too  much  to  do  with  the  animus  of  his  communica- 
tion— quite  too  visible  for  his  reputation  as  a  Christian  minister 
and  a  candid  observer.  Your  correspondent  has  been  admitted, 
with  all  kindness,  and  without  the  suspicion  that  he  would  make 
any  other  than  a  friendly  and  honorable  use  of  the  confidence  thus 
reposed  in  him,  to  the  most  unreserved  disclosures  which  his  breth- 
ren, of  three  denominations  in  the  city,  have  made  of  their  views 
of  theological  subjects.  And  no  one  knows  better  than  he,  that, 
on  many  points,  their  opinions  are  not  in  perfect  harmony.  Nor 
should  it  have  appeared  strange  to  him  that  in  a  large  Council, 
composed  of  the  pastors  and  delegates  of  eleven  churches,  all  were 
not  alike  satisfied  with  the  candidate's  explanation  of  his  creed. 
If  in  the  main  they  were  prepared  to  pronounce  him  sound  in  the 
faith,  and  as  such  could  commend  him  to  the  confidence  of  the 
churches,  this  was  all  they  were  called  upon  to  do  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case. 

To  the  demand  that  the  retired,  and  necessarily  exclusive  delib- 
erations of  the  Council  should  be  made  public,  we  have  only  to  say 
that  it  is  a  very  unusual  one.  When  was  it  known  that  a  body 
selected  for  the  exjDress  purpose  of  settling  a  question  referred  to 
their  sole  decision,  should  either  call  in  to  their  aid  the  deliberations 
of  others,  in  making  up  their  result,  or  openly  proclaim  the  possi- 
bility of  minuter  shades  of  differing  opinions  in  their  own  body  ?* 

And  now,  Messrs.  Editors,  we  are  happy  to  say  that  we  have 
done  with  your  correspondent,  and  we  hope  never  to  be  unfortu- 
nate enough  to  meet  with  another  so  disingenuous  and  uncourteous. 
It  is  refreshing  to  turn  to  your  own  calm,  dignified,  and  temperate 
statement  of  the  whole  question.  It  lies  in  a  nut-shell.  You  are 
willing,  and  we  honor  you  for  the  liberality,  to  put  aside  for  the 

*  Here  again  Drs.  H.  and  S.  seem  to  have  misapprehended  the  point  of  Mr.  C's 
letter.  They  had  denied  the  truth  of  his  report,  and  had  said  that  "  those  who  were 
present  at  the  examination  or  knew  anything  of  it,  need  not  be  told  that  his  statements 
were  a  succession  of  misrepresentations,"  &c.  They  had  said  (Bost.  Rec.)  that  he  was 
probably  the  only  man  wlio  had  received  such  an  impression.  They  had  represented 
the  action  of  the  Council  as  harmonious,  and  had  left  the  impression  strongly  that  on 
the  whole  it  was  a  clear  and  satisfactory  case  to  the  entire  Council ;  and  had  severely 
rebuked  the  papers  that  had  given  currency  to  any  opposite  impressions.  Now  the 
case  was  very  easily  settled.  The  Council  "were  present  and  knew  something  about 
it."  Mr.  Childs  oifered  to  submit  the  whole  case  to  the  public  if  Drs.  Hawes  and 
Spring  would  simply  state  the  facts  in  reference  to  this  harmonious  Council.  If  the 
facts  had  been  as  Drs.  H.  and  S.  represented,  then  there  could  have  been  no  possible 
objection  to  their  being  known.  On  the  other  hand,  there  seems  to  us  to  have  been 
every  reason  why  so  easy  and  satisfactory  a  way  for  ending  the  controversy  and  silenc- 
ing the  objector  should  have  been  embraced.  This  single  point  must  carry  with  it  to 
every  reflecting  mind,  an  overwhelming  force  of  evidence  as  to  the  real  facts  connected 
with  the  ordination. 


25 

present  the  matters  wliicli  constitute  disputed  ground  between 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  and  to  inquire  whether  the 
Council  should  have  proceeded  to  the  installation  of  the  candidate 
after  such  an  avowal  as  is  involved  in  the  following  question  and 
answer. 

Q.  Suppose,  sir,  you  were  called  to  the  death  bed  of  an  impenitent 
man,  and  knew  that  he  had  but  ten  minutes  to  live  ;  would  you 
tell  him  that  he  must  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  within  that  time 
or  be  lost  ? 

A.    I   WOULD   NOT. 

Were  this  statement  fairly  made  by  your  correspondent  w^e 
should  say  with  you,  that  it  fully  justifies  the  most  alarming  view 
you  have  taken  of  the  case,  and  would  have  required  the  Council 
to  pause  before  proceeding  to  the  ordinatic"^  But  it  is  not  fairly 
made.  The  question  and  answer  are  heard  out  of  their  connexion, 
and  totally  misrepresent  the  case.  Had  the  Council  taken  the  view 
of  it  thus  artfully  given,  they  would  not  long  have  deliberated, 
and  Mr.  Parker,  by  their  act,  never  would  have  been  the  pastor  of 
the  South  Church  in  Hartford.  And  were  he  to  advance  such  a 
sentiment  now,  on  a  suppositious  trial  before  his  Consociation,  we 
would  be  among  the  first  to  wash  our  hands  of  complicity  with  the 
error,  and  our  suffrages  for  his  deposition  would  not  be  lacking. 
We  will  tell  you  what  he  did  say,  and  under  what  circumstances 
he  said  it. 

The-4Dpic  under  examination  was  the  candidate's  expressed  hope 
touching  the  'possihiUty  of  a  future  state  of  probation  for  those  who 
had  never  heard  of  Christ.  In  this  connexion  he  repeatedly  and 
distinctly  said : 

1.  That  there  was  no  future  probation  for  those  who  rejected 
Christ  in  this  life.  Their  case  was  desperate  and  admitted  of  no 
hope. 

2.  That  neither  in  the  case  of  pagans,  or  unbelievers  in  a  gos- 
pel land,  would  he  hold  out  any  expectation  of  a  future  state  of 
probation. 

3.  That  if  called  to  the  bedside  of  a  dying  pagan,  or  a  dying 
man  in  a  Christian  land  ignorant  of  Christ,  and  believing  that  he 
had  but  a  short  time  to  live,  he  could  not  shut  him  up  to  a  belief 
in  an  unknown  Christ  or  perdition.  Such  an  one  could  have  no 
sufficient  intelligence  of  the  way  of  salvation,  and  must  be  left  in 
the  hands  of  a  righteous  and  gracious  God.  He  would  not  tell 
such  a  man  that  within  that  brief  space  of  time  he  must  believe  in 
Christ  or  perish. 

4.  And  in  the  case  of  a  dying  sinner  under  the  light  of  the  gos- 
pel, he  would  urge  no  other  demand,  and  suggest  no  other  hope 
than  this — an  immediate  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ ;  not  in 
nine  minutes,  nor  five,  nor  one ;  but  nov: — or  you  are  lost ! 

Such  were  the  circumstances  in  which  that  decisive  answer  was 


26 

given.  By  the  veiy  circumstances  in  which  the  question  was  put, 
it  and  the  answer  were  limited  to  the  case  of  one  ignorant  of  Christ. 
"We  well  remember,  and  the  Council  will  remember,  that  Mr.  Parker 
presented  in  defence  of  his  possible  theory,  the  supposition  of  a 
youth  educated  in  all  the  ignorance  and  crime  of  the  "Five  Points," 
who  had  never  heard  of  the  way  of  salvation,  and  yet  in  whose 
moral  sensibilities  there  might  still  remain  some  gTOund  for  the 
hope  -that  if  Christ  w^ere  understandingly  proposed  to  him  he 
would  accept  the  Saviour.  Such  an  one  he  vjoidd  not  shut  up  con- 
clusively to  present  faith  in  Christ  or  final  perdition.  We  do  not 
defend  or  approve  his  views.  They  are  repulsive  to  our  moral 
sense.  We  had  rather  leave  such  a  case  where  the  Sciiptures  have 
left  it.  The  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right.  We  only  state 
the  fiicts  as  they  can  easily  be  recalled  by  every  member  of  the 
Council.  Any  other  construction  than  such  as  we  have  here  put 
upon  the  question  and  answer,  is  at  variance  with  the  particular 
topic  then  under  discussion,  and  in  conflict  with  Mr.  Parker's 
statement  that  for  such  as  reject  Christ  there  is  no  hope. 

We  know  that  popular  favor  is  no  certain  criterion  of  a  minis- 
ters soundness  in  the  faith.  But  it  is  to  us  a  somewhat  significant 
circumstance  that  after  a  trial  of  five  weeks  or  more,  during  which 
Mr.  Parker  had  preached  to  a  watchful  church  and  congregation, 
not  a  few  of  whom  are  distinguished  for  shrewdness,  intelligence, 
and  love  of  the  truth,  he  received  from  that  people  an  unanimous 
invitation  to  become  their  pastor.  They  were  willing  themselves 
to  sit,  and  to  place  their  children,  under  his  ministry,  for  his  and 
their  life,  if  God  pleased.  We  have  heard  more  than  one  of  them 
declare  with  thankfulness  their  confidence  that  in  him  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church  had  sent  them  a  teacher  after  his  own  lieart. 
And  they  are  not  loose  and  careless  thinkers,  but  men  of  clear- 
sighted and  far-reaching  views,  whose  discernment  and  probity, 
and_  earnestness  in  contending  for  the  faith,  have  won  for  them  an 
enviable  reputation  in  this  city  and  its  vicinage.  And  the  exam- 
ination was  conducted  in  their  presence,  and  in  that  of  hundreds 
more — eager  and  interested  listeners — and  resulted  in  their  entire 
apiproval,  with  the  exception  we  are  bound  to  say,  of  the  single 
article  already  repeatedly  spoken  of,  and  which  probably  every 
member  of  the  Council  had  rather  not  have  heard. 

With  thanks  for  your  former  courtesy,  and  trusting  that  we  may 
acknowledge  a  repetition  of  it  in  the  insertion  of  this  communica- 
cation,  we  remain. 

Your  brethren  in  the  faith, 

Samuel  Spring. 
J.  Hawes. 

Hartford,  March  26,  1860. 

To  this  letter  the  Observer  added  the  following  remarks  : 


27 

REMARKS   BY   THE    EDITORS. 

1.  The  change  of  tone  in  this  communication,  from  that  which 
pervaded  the  former  from  the  same  venerable  men,  is  at  once  re- 
markable and  gratifying. 

2.  The  former  article  censured  ns  in  severe  and  unwarrantable 
terms  for  giving  publicity  to  well  attested  facts.  The  communica- 
tion above  furnishes  as  complete  a  vindication  of  the  propriety  of 
that  publication  as  could  be  desired. 

3.  It  is  now  evident  that  on  most  of  the  points  in  question  a 
large  majority  of  the  Council  coincided  with  the  candidate  in  theo- 
logical opinions. 

4.  On  the  subject  of  a  future  state  of  probation,  the  testimony 
of  Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes  will  be  regarded  as  decisive  by  nine- 
teen-twentieths  of  the  Protestant  Christian  world.  According  to 
the  testimony  of  these  venerable  men,  the  candidate  held  such 
views  of  the  future  state,  that  if  he  were  called  to  a  dying  sinner 
ignorant  of  Christ,  he  would  not  shut  him  up  to  the  necessity  of 
receiving  the  Saviour,  or  of  being  lost.  His  views  were,  they  say, 
"repulsive  to  our  :*[Oral  SENSE."  They  are  so  to  ours.  They 
are  so  to  the  whole  Protestant  Christian  world,  with  here  and  there 
an  eccentric  exception.  And  then  the  question  meets  us  :  Should 
a  man  be  ordained  to  preach  the  gospel  whose  views  on  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  gospel  are  "  repulsive  to  our  moral  sense  ?  " 
Let  us  stand  alone  in  the  opinion,  if  it  must  be  so ;  let  the  united 
judgment  of  all  the  Councils  from  that  of  Nice  down  to  Hartford 
condemn  us,  but  when,  by  holding  up  the  right  hand  or  saying 
AYE,  we  vote  to  ordain  a  man  whose  expressed  sentiments  are 
repnhive  to  our  moral  sense,  let  our  right  hand  forget  its  cunning, 
and  our  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  our  mouth. 


*  April  12th,  a  reply  to  Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes  appeared  from 
Dr.  Yermilye. 

For  the  New  York  Observer. 

REV.  DR.  VERMILYE'S  STATEMENT. 

HIS   OWX   QUESTIONS   AND   THE   ANSWERS   IN   THE   HARTFORD 
EXAMINATION. 

Messrs.  Editors : — At  the  close  of  my  communication  in  regard 
to  the  Hartford  ordination,  it  was  intimated  that  should  it  become 
necessary,  1  would  make  a  fuller  statement  on  the  subject.  The 
recent  letter  of  Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes  releases  me  from  that  ne- 
cessity on  all  particulars  but  one,  inasmuch  as  it  concedes  almost 
every  point  of  any  importance.  I  'have  no  disposition  to  enter 
upon  any  controversy  with  them,  nor  to  take  any  part  in  that  now 


28 

in  jjrogress,  except  to  confirm  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  truth.  I 
may  be  permitted,  however,  to  express  my  regret,  that  in  a  matter 
of  so  grave  importance,  the  spirit  of  sectarian  prejudice  has  been 
invoked,  and  the  controversy  represented  as  one  concerning  points 
disputed  between  Presbyterians  and  Congregationahsts.  I  do  not 
thinlc  that  during  the  whole  session  of  the  council,  a  single  ques- 
tion was  asked  or  point  raised,  which  could  be  so  interpreted.  The 
matters  in  dispute  were  matters  of  faith,  not  of  form ;  and  in  re- 
gard to  which  the  standards  of  the  two  denominations  are  not  at 
variance.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  one  question  which  occu- 
pied so  much  of  the  time  of  the  council. 

The  writers  of  the  letter  have  stated  that  there  was  a  solitary 
exception  to  the  unanimity  with  which  the  council  endorsed  the 
candidate.  It  is  now  known  that  I  am  the  person  referred  to.  I 
am  thankful  for  the  kind  terms  in  which  they  have  been  pleased  to 
refer  to  me.  While  I  have  no  disposition  to  evade  any  just  respon- 
sibility, nor  to  pronounce  upon  that  of  others,  it  is  right  to  say 
that  this  statement  is  hardly  fair,  if  it  is  designed  to  influence  pub- 
lic opinion,  by  the  supposed  unanimity  of  the  council.  I  put  it 
to  my  venerable  friends,  whether  it  is  fair,  not  to  me  but  to  the 
council,  and  the  truth,  to  leave  the  impression  that  they  reached  an 
easy  and  harmonious  decision,  with  a  single  exception,  or  that 
there  were  only  "possibly  minuter  shades  of  differing  opinions?" 
On  this  very  delicate  subject,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  neither  unnec- 
essarily to  proclaim  nor  to  conceal  the  facts.  In  less  than  a  week 
after  the  ordination,  another  member  of  the  council,  (with  no  un- 
kind intention,  I  am  sure,)  amid  a  circle  of  ministers,  made  a 
statement  similar  to  that  which  I  am  now  considering,  and  named 
me  as  the  single  dissentient.  I  considered  it  proper  then  also,  to 
protest  against  it,  as  an  unfair  exhibition  of  the  facts.  But  I  here 
dismiss  this  point.  I  did  cast  the  only  negative  given  on  that 
occasion. 

As  I  asserted  the  substantial  truth  of  your  correspondent's  stato- 
ments,  and  as  this  last  letter  charges  that  some  of  them  are  artfully 
made,  and  purports  to  refute  them  or  explain  them  away,  I  may 
be  excused  for  noticing  the  new  points  here  made.  I  fully  agree 
with  you,  Messrs.  Editors,  that  the  great  and  important  facts  are 
virtually  admitted,  and  the  truth  of  previous  statements  confirmed. 
Yet  respect  for  my  venerable  friends  demands,  that  what  they 
regard  as  a  satisfactory  explanation  should  be  examined.  I  have 
read,  with  all  the  candor  which  I  can  gather,  this  communication ; 
and  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  I  see  no  reason  for  altering  at  all 
my  j  udgnient  of  the  case,  or  withdrawing  the  confirmation  before 
given  to  the  original  statements.  On  all  the  points  preceding  that 
of  future  probation,  there  is  now  a  fair  understanding,  and  a  sub- 
stantial agreement  as  to  what  took  place.  Everything  of  any 
importance  is  virtually  conceded.  It  seems  to  me,  that  no  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  candidate ;  I  will  however  say,  in  regard  to 


29 

the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  that  while  the  statements  of  the  letter- 
writer  were  literally  true,  and  the  candidate  was  not  perfectly 
clear,  my  own  impression,  upon  the  whole,  was,  that  his  views 
were  not  so  much  positively  erroneous,  as  defective  and  confused. 
This  I  said,  during  the  session  of  the  council,  in  answer  to  the 
inquiries  of  a  friend. 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  last,  and  most  contested  point,  that  of 
future  probation.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  cannot  at  all  concede, 
that  the  whole  decision  turns  upon  the  question  and  answer  now 
newly  expounded.  The  difliculty  did  not  arise  with  that  interrog- 
atory, nor  was  it  first  made  apparent  then,  nor  did  it  even  centre 
around  it.  The  whole  handling  of  this  subject  by  the  candidate 
was  grievously  unsatisfactory.  Not  only  were  his  opinions  virtu- 
ally included  in  his  creed ;  not  only  were  they  voluntarily  presen- 
ted, without  any  necessity  at  the  point  of  the  examination  when 
they  were  brought  out,  as  far  as  I  could  see,  but  they  were  insisted 
on,  and  elaborately  defended,  before  this  now  famous  question  was 
put.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  that  if  it  had  never  been  put  the 
case  would  have  been  a  trying  one  to  the  council,  and  their  decis- 
ion would  have  been  reached  through  great  concern  and  perplexity. 
And  if  that  question  were  now  dropped  out  of  the  case,  there  re- 
mains a  mass  of  evidence  as  to  the  opinion  of  the  candidate,  which 
cannot  be  easily  set  aside. 

But  we  have  now  what  purports  to  be  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the^answer  given ;  with  the  concession  that  if  its  more  obvious 
meaning  were  the  true  one,  that  answer  would  have  been  a  bar  to 
the  ordination.  It  is  claimed  that  no  other  meaning  than  that  now 
given  is  consistent  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  What  then 
is  this  new  interpretation  ?  It  is  this :  that  the  question  referred 
to  the  case  of  persons,  jDagans  or  others,  who  were  in  absolute  igno- 
rance of  every  iiKty  of  salvation^  and  of  the  first  principles  of  the 
Christian  religion.  It  was  in  regard  to  this  class  of  persons,  actu- 
ally pagan,  in  whatever  land,  that  this  answer  was  given.  The 
phrase  "ignorant  of  Christ "  is  to  betaken  in  its  most  absolute 
sense.  There  is  virtually  but  one  class  of  persons  to  whom  the 
exception  involved  in  the  answer  refers.  If  called  to  the  bedside 
of  a  dying  pagan.,  in  India,  or  New  York,  the  candidate  would  not 
shut  him  up  to  the  necessity  of  finding  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  or 
being  left  without  hope. 

Now  with  all  respect  for  my  venerable  brethren,  I  will  state 
why  I  cannot  accept  the  interpretation  thus  given.  I  claim  a  right 
to  speak  with  some  certainty  as  to  the  real  object  of  the  question, 
because  it  was  framed  and  put  by  myself,  during  that  part  of  the 
examination  which  I  conducted.  It  was  deliberately  and  carefully 
stated  to  the  candidate  with  all  necessary  explanations.  It  was 
designedly  put  as  an  extreme  case,  to  test  the  ]3ractical  eftect  of  his 
theory,  in  his  ministry.     It  was  put  not  as  a  general  question,  but 


30 

to  him  individually  as  the  supposed  pastor  of  the  South  Church  in 
Hartford ;  and  the'  point  was  not  what  it  might  be  expedient  to  do, 
but  what  would  he  feel  justified  in  saying^  doctrinally,  if  it  were 
expedient  to  state  such  an  alternative.  It  was  put  as  significant  of 
the  last  lingering  hope  in  my  own  mind,  that  the  candidate  might 
be  extricated  from  his  unhappy  position,  though  of  course  with  the 
ruin  of  his  consistency.  The  answer  did  not  surprise  me  :  it  was 
in  the  direct  line  of  his  previous  statements :  and  on  hearing  it,  I 
surrendered  the  case  as  hopeless,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned.  Now 
I  claim  that  I  ought  to  have  known  the  bearing  and  relations  of 
my  own  question ;  and  at  the  risk  of  being  considered  a  witness  in 
my  own  case,  I  affirm  that  the  candidate  ought  not  to  have  misun- 
derstood it.  Nor  can  any  advantage  justly  be  taken  of  the  "Five 
Points"  illustration,  or  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  phrase  "  ignorant  of 
Christ."  For  as  to  the  former,  the  question  was  partly  framed  to 
carry  the  candidate  beyond  such  cases  ;  and  as  to  the  latter,  I  dis- 
tinctly said  in  substance,  "  I  mean  a  man  who  has  intelligence 
enough  to  understand  you,  and  who,  finding  himself  suddenly  in 
the  face  of  death,  sends  for  you  to  tell  him  how  he  may_  save  his 
soul."  It  is  said,  that  any  other  than  the  new  interpretation  is  in- 
consistent with  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  But  how  is  the  ex- 
clamation of  Dr.  Hawes  (substantially) — "  then  the  man  will  never 
repent,  if  you  give  him  any  time  beyond  the  present  life," — consist- 
ent with  the  new  view,  or  with  the  "shutting  up  a  man  to  a  belief 
in  an  unknown  Christ,  or  perdition,"  which  I  am  supposed  to  have 
demanded  ?  The  application  of  my  question  to  the  literal  pagan 
is  absolutely  untenal^le.  No  such  application  was  in  my  thoughts. 
The  question  was  personal  and  practical — "  What  would  you  do?" 
— and  the  pastor  of  the  South  Church  in  Hartford  is  not  likely  to 
be  called  to  the  dying  bed  of  a  literal  pagan.  This  view  of  the 
case  also  represents  Mr.  Parker  as  cherishing  the  hope  of  a  future 
probation  for  all  the  heathen  indiscriminately.  But  if  the  applica- 
tion of  the  question  be  confined  to  the  supposed  virtuous  heathen, 
they  were  expressly  remitted  to  a  more  hopeful  condition.  For 
when  the  attempt  was  made,  by  the  kindness  of  one  of  Mr.  P.'s 
friends  in  the  council,  to  reduce  the  whole  case  to  this  category, 
and  to  make  him  admit  that  his  scruples  referred  only  to  those  of 
whom,  for  example,  Socrates  was  a  type,  the  reply  was,  "No,  Sir; 
that  is  not  it  at  all ;  I  believe  Socrates  went  to  heaven."  Of  course, 
he  needed  no  further  probation.  I  must  repeat,  that  the  case  of  the 
dying  pagan  was  absolutely  excluded  from  my  cpiestion.  Nor  did 
it  apply  to  the  case  of  one  dying  in  a  christian  land  in  entire  igno- 
rance on  the  subject  of  religion.  Indeed  it  seemed  to  me,  that  the 
true  application  was  conceded  in  the  first  defence  offered.  The 
excuse  for  the  unhappy  answer  then  alleged  was,  not  that  it  applied 
to  a  man  in  pagan  or  semi-pagan  darkness,  but  that  "  he  would  not 
broach  the  supposition,  in  public  or  in  private,  to  an  impenitent 


31 

man."     Need  I  say  what  is  the  common  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  an  impenitent  man  ?" 

But  did  he  not  say,  that  for  those  who  rejected  Christ  there  was 
no  hope  ?  I  will  not  deny  that  he  did ;  though  the  sentiment  was 
not  as  clearly  presented  to  my  mind  as  it  seems  to  have  been  to 
otliers.  StOl  I  will  yield  to  their  clearer  convictions.  But  I  can 
only  say,  that  I  was  compelled  to  think  that  he  referred  to  a  class 
of  persons,  who  deliberately  and  obstinately  repudiated  this  way  of 
salvation.  For  them  there  was  no  hope.  Another  class  consisted 
of  those  who  were  utterly  "  ignorant  of  Christ :"  for  these  he  hoped 
for  a  future  probation.  Another  class  consisted  of  impenitent  men ; 
such  as  many  of  those  who  hear  the  word.  These  he  would  not 
shut  up  absolutely  in  a  dying  hour,  to  a  reception  of  Christ,  or 
perdition.  My  venerable  friends  now  say  that  he  would.  They 
affirm  for  him,  the  very  thing  which  to  me  he  denied. 

And  now,  Messrs.  Editors,  I  believe  with  you,  that  the  case  is 
given  up  by  your  correspondents,  in  their  very  statement  of  it. — 
Why  would  not  Mr.  Parker  shut  up  a  dying  sinner,  a  dying  pagan, 
if  you  please,  to  faith  in  Christ,  or  perdition  ?  He  certainl}^  would 
not  rest  on  the  paltry  evasion  that  "ten  minutes"  was  not  long 
enough  to  teach  him :  for  no  stress  was  laid  upon  the  time,  except 
that  it  was  ^^a  short  time^^^  as  your  correspondents  say;  and  the 
measure  of  it  was  varied.  He  will  not  seriously  say,  that  I  asked 
him  to-shut  a  man  up  to  faith  in  an  unknown  Christ.  Let  us 
brush  away  the  fog.  "Would  he  make  known  to  a  dying  man  "igno- 
rant of  Christ,"  that  Christ  is  his  only  hope  of  salvation?  "If 
called  to  the  death-bed  of  an  impenitent  man,  who  had  but  a  short 
time  to  live,  would  he  tell  him  that  he  must  repent  and  believe  in 
Christ,  loithin  that  time^ — before  he  died, — or  be  lost?"  He  said  he 
would  not.  I  think  he  meant  so :  and  his  reason  was  found  in  his 
hope  of  a  future  state  of  probation.  And  the  mind  is  not  relieved, 
but  the  more  perplexed,  by  the  "  Five  Points"  illustration.  As  has 
been  said  before,  the  "question"  went  beyond  that  case,  intention-* 
ally.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  language,  "in  whose  moral 
sensibilities  there  might  still  remain  some  ground  for  the  hope  that 
if  Christ  were  understandiugly  j)roposed  to  him,  he  would  accept 
the  Saviour?"  I  should  interpret  it  to  apply  to  one,  who,  as  was 
said  of  some  of  the  heathen,  might  have  the  spirit  of  faith,  but  to 
whom  the  object  of  faith  was  not  made  known.  But  these  would 
be  regenerate  persons,  and,  like  Socrates,  would  go  directly  to 
heaven !  A  member  of  the  council  said  to  me,  that  he  understood 
the  candidate  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Will  that  fur- 
nish the  explanation  ?  I  fear  the  trvie  explanation  must  be  found 
in  Mr.  P.'s  declaration,  when  asked  a  reason  for  his  views,  that  he 
felt  as  if  God  would  give  every  one  a  "fair  chance."  I  am  afraid 
that  the  vague  and  general  interpretation  which  has  been  given, 
cannot  hide  the  true  meaning  of  that  unfortunate  expression.     It 


32 

was  uttered  in  the  connection  I  have  indicated.  It  revealed  to  my 
mind,  at  least,  the  source  of  all  the  young  pastor's  difficulties,  in 
the  principle  that  God's  mercy  would  not  permit  hun  to  cast  off 
any  who  had  not  deliberately  rejected  the  way  of  salvation  through 
Christ.     Every  one  must  have  a  '/a/;-  chance.'''' 

My  venerable  friends  will  bear  with  me  in  so  long  a  letter ;  the 
more  as  it  is  now  publicly  known,  that  no  one  else  in  the  council 
will  be  likely  to  annoy  them  with  any  further  remonstrance.  I 
had  no  agency  in  bringing  this  matter  before  the  public,  and  only 
spoke  under  an  apparent  necessity  And  I  might  be  permitted 
now,  perhaps,  to  say  a  word  as  to  my  personal  relations  to  the 
council,  and  the  examination  of  the  candidate.  I  took  my  seat, 
with  the  intention  to  ask  no  question  myself;  and  every  one  put 
by  me  was  in  kindness,  and  with  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of  satis- 
fying my  own  mind  of  his  substantial  soundness.  When  I  found 
myself  alone  in  the  negative,  I  considered  myself  exonerated,  and 
my  personal  duty  at  an  end.  But  it  is  far  more  important  than 
any  personal  matters  to  say,  that  we  may  believe  that  the  truth 
will  be  promoted  and  good  accomplished  by  this  discussion.  The 
irritation  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  brethren  will  pass  away.  The 
trouble  and  annoyance  which  have  been  experienced  by  the  young 
pastor,  and  by  his  friends  in  his  church  and  elsewhere,  will  be  for- 
gotten ;  if,  at  least,  he  shall  jDrove  himself  a  faithful  teacher  of  the 
truth,  and  shall  vindicate  the  charitable  judgment  of  the  council  in 
his  case.  But  this  is  gained.  "We  have  the  unequivocal  declaration 
of  Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes,  for  themselves  and  the  council,  that 
had  they  understood  Mr.  Parker  to  hold  what  he  was  supposed  by 
some  to  hold,  they  would  have  refused  him  ordination  ;  and  even 
now  would  vote  for  his  deposition.  We  have  also  their  judgment 
that  w^hat  he  did  avow  on  this  important  point,  is  erroneous,  and 
"repulsive  to  their  moral  sense."  This  is  enough;  they  will  not 
now  be  quoted  as  holding  or  sanctioning  any  modified  views  on 
•this  topic.  If  any  have  been  disposed  to  defend  Mr.  Parker's 
views,  or  if  Universalists  have  been  anxious  to  claim  him,  as 
in  the  first  steps  of  the  road  towards  their  encampment, — let  it  be 
distinctly  understood  that  the  fathers  of  the  churches  pronounce 
those  supposed  views  to  be  "heresy,"  and  severely  condemn  the 
"laxity"  with  which  the  young  pastor  is  really  chargeable.  Let  it 
be  distinctly  understood  that  orthodox  councils  will  not  sanction 
such  deviations  from  the  truth.  If  this  shall  be  gained,  I  shall  be 
content  to  be  supposed  to  have  erred  in  my  solitary  vote. 

Ea.st  Windsor  mU,  Ct  ^^^^-  ^-  ^^rmilye. 


Mr.  Parker  himself  then  appeared  in  the  Observer  of  April 
19th:—  ^ 


33 

MR.  PARKER'S   LETTER. 

EEV.  E.  P.  PAEKEE,  ON  HIS  EXAMINATION  FOR  OE- 

DINATION  AT  HAETFOED,  CONN. 

Hartford,  April  13,  1860. 
To  the  Editors  of  the  Neio  York  Observer: 

Until  I  read  tlie  letter  of  Dr.  Vermilye,  (Observer,  April 
12,)  I  had  strong  hopes  that  a  fair  statement  of  the  facts  in  the 
case  would  satisfactorily  explain  to  him  my  position  at  the  Hart- 
ford ordination.  I  now  neither  hope  nor  care  to  satisfy  him.  I 
only  wish  to  make  a  few  remarks,  state  the  facts,  and  leave  the 
truth  to  God.  I  have  in  my  possession  elaborate  articles  from 
men  who  attended  the  examination  and  carefully  noted  doiun  my 
positions,  in  which  are  statements  irreconcilable  with  those  of  Mr. 
Childs,  or  with  the  limping  logic  of  Dr.  Vermilye.  I  now  forbear 
to  publish  them,  being  quite  convinced  that  such  a  course  would 
only  tend  to  protract  a  disgusting  controversy.  In  regard  to  Dr. 
Vermilye's  letter  I  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  remarks. 

(1.)  It  is  merely  a  specious  and  repetitious  plea/o?"  his  oion  forced 
construction  of  a  question,  which  without  any  inteUigihle  explana- 
tion, was  put  to  me  by  him  at  the  examination.  It  is  quite  re- 
markable that,  according  to  this  letter,  that  question  was  purposely 
framed  so  as  to  meet  and  obviate  all  other  possible  constructions. — 
The  thing  is  slightly  overdone  we  think  ! 

(2.)  "No  such  explanation  as  he  says  "in  substance"  he  gave,  fell 
on  my  ears. 

(3.)  Whatever  the  real  object  of  the  question  may  have  been,  as 
it  revolved  in  the  interrogator's  mind,  the  council  and  candidate 
could  but  interpret  the  question  for  themselves.  If  Dr.  Y.  had 
any  such  object  in  asking  the  question  as  he  labors  to  state, 
that  object  was  unhinted  by  him  in  the  question  itself.  I  answered 
the  question  and  "claim  a  right  to  speak  with  some  certainty  as  to 
the"  obvious  meaning  of  the  question. 

(4.)  In  neither  of  the  letters  written  by  Dr.  Yermilye  has  he 
given  my  answer  to  his  question.  Mr.  Childs  has  given  a  part  of  it, 
but  only  the  flexible  part.  The  answer  was,  "I  would  not,  but 
WOULD  tell  him  of  Christ  P^ 

(5.)  I  indignantly  deny  that  I  voluntarily  presented  my  perplex- 
ities on  this  matter  to  the  council.  On  the  other  hand,  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  them  was  screvjedoMi  of  me  by  Dr.  Hawes  and 
others.  I  distinctly  told  the  council  that  I  thought  an  examination 
on  this  mere  doubt  was  unfair ! 

I  also  deny  that  I  defended  on  any  ground  a  belief  in  a  future 
probation /or  any.  I  never  had  any  such  belief  I  never  expressed 
any  such  belief. 

(6.)  I  am  happy  to  state  that  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  very  much 
lament  an  unaccountable  slip  of  the  pen  in  their  last  article.     They 


34 

intended  to  say — ''the  views  ascribed  by  Mr.  Childs  to  Mr.  Parker 
were  repulsive  to  their  moral  sense!"  In  the  hurry  of  writing  or 
recasting  their  article  they  omitted  a  part  of  what  they  intended  to 
say.  Therefore,  all  the  clever  patronage  with  which  Dr.  V.'s  letter 
so  complacently  closes,  is  so  much  waste  ink. 

(7.)  I  ever  have,  still  do,  and  pray  God  I  ever  shall  believe,  that 
God  will  give  all  men  '■'■afairchanceP''     I  Jcnoiv  he  will. 

(8.)  The  construction  now  put  upon  "the  awful  question,"  and 
most  triumphantly  arrogated  throughout  this  letter,  is,  in  view  of 
the  connection  in  which  the  question  was  put,  an  unnatural  and  il- 
logical one ;  and  (if  I  may  be  allowed  to  look  up  towards  the  East 
Windsor  Hill  with  the  least  bit  of  levity)  at  once  reminded  me  of 
the  old  sons: — "When  a  twister  a-twisting  will  twist  him  a  twist, 
&c."! 

Let  me  now  state  the  facts  in  the  case, 

I  pass  by  the  questions  on  "Inspiration,"  "Trinity,"  and  "Abil- 
ity," not  because,  as  is  modestly  assumed^  the  charges  of  Mr.  Childs 
are  conceded  to  be  true — for  I  claim  that  they  are  false  charges — 
but  because  the  whole  discussion  has  been  hinged  on  the  single 
subject  of  future  probation. 

And  first,  let  us  compare  the  original  charge  with  the  one  now 
insisted  on.  I  extract  from  your  columns  of  the  23d  of  February. 
"  He  (the  candidate)  held  that  after  death  *  *  *  there  is  a  state 
for  all  souls  *  *  *  where  some  loho  had  rejected  Christ  in  this  life 
would  have  a  new  offer  of  Christ  and  salvation."  Noio  the  charge 
is  that  the  candidate  said — "  Undine  to  the  belief  that  after  death, 
&c.  And  the  words  "rejected  Christ  in  this  life"  are  omitted! 
Which  of  these  charges  were  [was?]  made  from  ^Hliose  notes,^^  we  are 
not  informed.  For  the  progress  towards  truth,  however,  we  should  be 
grateful.'" 

But  let  us  take  the  more  guarded  charge,  which  is  nearest  truth. 
"  I  incline  to  the  helief,^^  &c. 

The  answer  of  which  these  words  are  the  beginning  was  not 
given  at  all,  to  a  question  concerning  salvation  in  a  future  state ; 
but  only  to  a  question  concerning  my  views  in  regard  to  the  fact  of 
an  intermediate  state  of  the  dead.  I  was  requested  to  state  my 
views  on  this  point,  and  I  said — "I  incline  to  the  belief  that  there 
is  a  state  or  condition  after  death  for  all  souls,"  and  then  added 
that  I  rather  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  this  intermediate  state 
would  136  the  lot  of  all  the  dead  until  the  resurrection,  when  the 
righteous  would  enter  upon  the  consummate  bliss,  being  incorpo- 
rate, and  the  wicked  depart  into  their  full  measure  of  woe.  I  said 
that  my  mind  was  as  yet  unsettled  on  this  point.  Now  the  question 
of  the  'possibility  of  salvation  in  this  state  was  an  after  question.  It 
had  no  logical  connection  whatever  with  the  words,   "  I  incline  to 

*  This  reflection  would  have  been  saved,  if  the  writer  had  noticed  that  the  Observer 
in  this  remarli,  did  not  profess  to  quote  the  words  either  of  the  Letter  or  the  notes. 


35 

the  belief."  I  did  not  say,  at  any  time  during  the  examination 
that  I  helieved,  or  "inclined  to  the  belief"  that  some  souls  would 
have  a  new  offer  of  salvation  in  Hades.  "  I  inclined  to  a  belief" 
in  an  intermediate  state.  (See  Note  I.  below.)  As  to  what  I  did 
say :'  Throughout  the  whole  discussion  on  that  memorable  day,  I 
limited  the  bare  possibility  of  future  probation  to  such  as  had  never 
heard  or  hioicn  of  Christ.  I  repeatedly  remarked  that  for  such  as 
rejected  Christ  in  this  life  there  was  nothing  to  support  a  conjecture 
of  future  probation.  (See  Note  II.  below.)  On  this  point  I  felt  no 
perplexity.  In  regard  to  such  as  had  never  had  any  knowledge  of 
religious  things,  I  said  in  substance  this :  "  The  Bible  does  not 
make  it  decisive  and  unquestionable  to  me,  that  the  eternal  state  of 
every  human  soul  will  be  fixed  at  death."  I  said  that  the  whole 
Bible  looked  that  way ;  that  it  gave  me  no  reliahle  evidence  that  there 
would  be  a  probation  for  any  after  death.  Consequently  I  said  I 
had  no  such  belief  In  the  general  and  awful  silence  of  the  Bible 
I  simply  listened  to  the  echoes  of  my  own  quick  heart-beats,  while 
thinking  on  the  matter.  Dr.  Lawrence,  with  his  characteristic 
kindness,  quoted  a  certain  passage,  and  remarked  in  tones  that  fell 
strangely  sweet  into  that  hoarser  confusion  of  voices,  that  he  doubted 
not  the  candidate  by  a  prayerful  study  of  that  passage  would  come 
to  be  wholly  relieved  of  his  perplexity. 

I  am  sorry  to  contradict  Dr.  Vermilye  and  Mr.  Childs — but  am 
glad  to  say  that  I  did  not  defend  the  belief  in  a  future  probation.  I 
did  not  quote  a  verse  from  the  Epistle  of  Peter  in  support  of  such 
a  theoryT  I  said  that  this  passage  had  been  used  by  eminent  men 
in  the  church  to  support  the  doctrine,  but  that  it  did  not  satisfy 
me  .'*  (See  Note  3d  below.)  I  wiU  add  that  considerable  inge- 
nuity was  displayed  by  one  member  of  the  council  in  an  apparent 
attempt  to  force  me  to  some  extreme  position  on  what  I  repeatedly 
told  him  was  a  doubtful,  unsettled  point  in  my  mind.  We  come 
now  to  the  awful  question.  What  Dr.  Vermilye's  aim  was  in  ask- 
ing the  question,  nobody  knows  but  himself  I  can  modestly 
return  his  compliment  and  assure  him  that  his  letter  is  "grievously 
unsatisfactory"  on  this  point.  I  thought  I  knew  what  the  ques- 
tion fairly  should  mean,  when  it  was  put ;  though  at  the  time  it 
was  generally  considered  a  remarkable,  rather  than  an  appropriate 
question.  There  are  one  or  two  versions  of  this  labored  ques- 
tion. We  will  take  Mr.  Childs'  version.  I  most  solemnly  affirm 
that  the  question  ivas  ashed  in  connection  with  an  outcast  from 
the  "  Five  Points  "  who  had  no  knowledge  of  Christ.  The  ques- 
tion rested  squarely  on  that  basis.  It  was  generally  so  under- 
stood. (See  note  4th  below.)  Observe  that  only  a  part  of  my 
answer  to  this  question  has  yet  been  given.  The  answer  was  this 
— "  I  would  notj  hut  icoidd  tell  him  of  Christ!''^  Now  the  question 
was  in  substance  this,  "  would  you,  if  called  to  the  death  bed  of 

*  Compare  with  this  the  statement  of  Dr.  Spring  in  the  Expositor,  p.  11. 


36 

an  impenitent  man  (who  liad  no  knowledge  of  Christ,  or  who  had 
been  brought  up  in  ignorance  of  religious  things)  who  had  but  ten 
minutes  to  live,  tell  him  he  must  repent  and  believe  on  Christ 
within  that  time  or  be  lost?  "  Ansioer — "  I  would  not,  hut  ivould 
tell  him  of  Christ.''''  I  insist  that  this  is  the  true  light  in  which  to 
view  the  question.  This  is  the  light  in  which  nine-tenths  of  those 
present  did  view  it,  whatever  obscure  purpose  the  questioner  may 
have  had. 

Well,  I  am  made  to  appear  as  answering,  "  I  would  not  in  my 
instructions  shut  a  man  up  to  immediate  repentance  and  faith ;" 
whereas  I  own  that  the  Bible  hems  us  all  in  to  immediate  recon- 
ciliation, and  would  myself  follow  the  leading  of  the  Bible  im- 
plicitly in  this  respect.  But  the  ictus  of  the  question  fell  on  the 
word  "  tell !"  Would  you  "  tell"  such  a  man  that  be  must  believe 
in  ten  minutes  or  be  damned.  "  I  would  not,"  &c.  "  Would 
not"  what?  Why,  would  not  place  any  such  alternative  before 
such  a  man.  It  would  be  just  such  spiritual  angling  as  Bellamy 
reproved  a  student  for.  Said  he — "  You  toss  your  great  hook  in 
and  say  "5«fe  or  he  damned P''  No  sirs!  I  would  not  tell  such 
a  soul  any  such  thing.  Why  did  Dr.  Vermilye  say  '■Hen  minutes" 
if  he  objects  to  sticking  to  it?  Such  a  man,  I  would  above  all  pray 
for  with  all  my  might.  Then  I  would  tell  him  of  Jesus  if  possibly 
I  might  just  introduce  him  to  the  Saviour,  or  the  Saviour  to  him. 
That  is  what  I  would  do.  That  is  what  I  said  I  would  do.  To  a 
man  who  had  previously  rejected  Christ  I  would  say — Not  ten, 
or  five,  or  two  minutes  but  noiu  !  You  have  not  the  shadow  of  a 
hope  beyond  just  now  !  This  sirs,  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
question  and  answer.  If,  I^r.  Y.  asked  the  question  and  so  ought 
to  know  about  it,  I  answered  it  and  was  more  interested  in  it.  I 
should  answer  the  question  as  then  put  and  understood,  in  the 
same  way,  if  it  should  be  put  to  me  again.  'Would  you  shut  him 
up  ?"  This  is  another  thing  ;  what  do  you  mean  by  this  ?  Would 
I  pass  judgment  on  him?  No!  Would  I,  in  my  instructions,  flash 
the  terrors  of  hell-fire  before  his  face  ?  No !  Would  I  close  every 
door  on  him  to  which  I  had  access,  hut  that  of  faith  in  Christ?  Yes 
I  loould  !  Thus  the  Bible  shuts  men  up,  and  thus  I  would  do  it 
always !  But  neither  I  nor  you,  nor  any  but  God  has  a  right  oth- 
erwise to  shut  up  a  dying  soul.  /  would  environ  a  soul  with  the 
necessity  of  immediate  repentance  and  faith,  but  as  for  dropping 
it  into  hell,  if  I  saw  no  evidence  of  its  repentance,  why  I  never 

would  do  it.     I  would  leave  it  with  God  and  follow  it  with 

fears  ?  hopes  ?  doubts  ?  yes,  but  above  all  with  faith  in  God  f^ 

*  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ?  Mr.  Parker  would  not  drop  into  hell  a  soul  in 
whom  he  saw  no  evidence  of  repentance !  Does  he  mean  solemnly  to  assurcthe  pub 
lie  that  he  is  not  the  Eternal  Judge  1  The  public  needed  no  such  assurance.  Does 
he  mean  to  say  that  for  a  man  who  has  died  with  no  evidence  of  repentance,  he  has  no 
ground  to  decide  whether  he  is  sealed  to  perdition  ?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that  he  sees 
no  inevitable  connection  between  an  impenitent  death  bed  and  eternal  woe  ?     We 


37 

Is  tliat  lieresy  ?  Then  put  a  cross  against  my  name,  or  brand 
the  black  mark  of  heresy  npon  the  yet  soft  cheek  of  my  character 
and  I  will  wear  it  as  an  ornament !  I  said  in  substance  before  the 
council,  what  Mr.  Childs  would  have  me  say — though  I  suppose  he 
otherwise  understood  me — that  "Christ  believed  on  ?20t<,' "  is  the 
only  reliable  ground  of  hope.  The  Bible  surveys  no  other  ground 
for  us.  There  and  then  I  declared  I  should  be  thus  compelled  to 
preach  ;  and  would  I  have  promised  to  preach  what  I  did  not  be- 
lieve? Dr.  Yermilye  says  "  He  will  not  seriously  say  that  I  asked 
him  to  shut  a  man  up  to  faith  in  an  unknown  Christ !  "  I  do  say 
with  all  respect,  that  if  the  question  in  its  connection  meant  any- 
thing at  all,  that  2vas  ichat  it  did  mean  !  Would  I  tell  a  man  who 
had  been  brought  up  in  utter  ignorance  of  religious  things,  who  had 
but  so  many  minutes  to  live,  to  believe  in  Christ  or  he  would  be 
eternally  damned?  It  would  be  neither  justifiable  nor  expedient. 
I  will  leave  the  matter  here.  I  can  state  my  views  on  this  subject 
when  courteously  asked,  or  ecclesiastically  summoned  so  to  do.  At 
present,  cheered  by  many  messages  from  various  quarters  in  New 
England,  blessed  with  kindest  encouragements  even  from  one  who 
came  from  East  Windsor  Hill  to  my  examination,  and  with  perfect 
unanimity  sustained  by  my  church,  I  prefer  to  listen  and  wait, 
after  having  thus  explained  my  views  as  stated  to  the  council. — 
And  now,  to  show  you  that  I  have  evidence  of  what  I  say,  allow 
me  to  present  the  following  notes  in  order,  coined  from  the  ^yrivate 
note-hooJc  of  Dr.  Samuel  Harris,  where  they  written  by  him  imme- 
diately after  reaching  home  after  examination.'-^ 

Dr.  Harris'  statements  were  written  independently  of  mine  of 
course.  He  says,  "I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Childs  has  not  obtained  a 
correct  idea  of  Mr.  Parker's  actual  belief;  and  that  every  one  of  his 
seven  specifications  is  either  an  incorrect  or  inadequate  representation 
of  Mr.  P.'s  doctrine  on  the  point.  In  many  instances  your  corres- 
pondent has  omitted  imiwrtant  .stafe7we/ife  actually  made  by  the  can- 
didate, which  prove  his  doctrine  widely  different  from  that  ascrib- 
ed to  him."  Now  as  to  the  notes.  Note  1st.  Dr.  Harris  says,  "I 
distinctly  remember  the  remark,  '  I  incline  to  the  belief,'  and  also 
that  the  subject  respecting  which  he  said  it,  ivas  not  the  question 
whether  there  will  be  any  offer  of  mercy  after  death,  but  the  gen- 
ercd  subject  of  an   intermediate  state  of  the  dead."     Note  2d.  Dr. 

think  he  does.  For  he  would  follow  such  a  soul  not  only  with  "fears,"  but  with 
"hopes !"  not  only  with  "doubts"  but  with  "faith  in  God  !"  Hopes  of  what  ?  and  faith 
for  what  1  What,  but  the  mercy  of  God  1  and  where,  but  beyond  the  grave  1  These  are 
significant  words.  To  our  mind  they  reveal  the  spring  from  which  all  that  has  been 
affirmed  of  Mr.  Parker's  faith  could  come. 

*  These  notes  bear  such  unmistakable  evidence  of  reference  to  the  controversy  as  it 
was  in  progress,  that  Mr.  Parker  must  be  in  error  in  supposing  them  written  im- 
mediately after  the  ordination.  Of  course  the  reference  to  Mr.  Childs  was  not  then 
written;  the  expression  "your  correspondent"  seems  quite  unintelligible  ;  and  the  words 
in  Note  1st,  "I  distinctly  remember  the  remark,  &c.,"  obviously  refer  to  a  remark 
in  Mr.  Childs'  letter. 


38 

Harris  says,  "Mr.  P.  declared  that  lie  felt  sure  that  there  will  be  no 
offer  of  mercy  in  the  future  life  to  such  as  have  had  the  gospel  in 
this  life."  Note  Sd.  Dr.  H.  says,  "He  (candidate)  had  examined 
1st  Peter,  3  :  19,  and  was  satisfied  it  does  not  j^rove  thsit  there  will  be 
probation  to  any  after  death.  He  was  convinced  that  there  is  no 
reliable  evidence  in  the  Bible,  justifying  a  belief  in  a  probation 
after  death." 

Note  4:th.  "  The  case  being  supposed  of  an  outcast  in  the  Five 
Points,  in  N.  Y.  city,  who  had  never  heard  of  Christ,  the  question 
was  asked,  If  called  to  such  a  person,  knowing  that  he  had  but  ten 
minutes  to  live,  &c.  The  answer  was,  I  would  not,  but  would  tell 
him  of  Christ."*  I  could  quote  more  fully  and  conclusively  from 
these  notes,  had  I  time  and  room. 

There  remains  only  this  to  be  added :  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring 
fully  endorse  these  notes  of  Prof.  Harris,  as  a  fair  representation 
of  the  case.  I  forbear  to  quote,  except  upon  the  most  important 
points.  A  dozen  men  who  heard  the  examination  have  told  me 
that  they  could  heartily  subscribe  to  these  my  statements.  In  fact 
29-30ths  of  those  present  at  that  examination  would  join  in  affirm- 
ing these  same  things.  Allow  me,  in  closing,  to  express  my  deep 
regret  that  this  controversy  has  arisen.  In  a  strange  land,  such  a 
publicity  has  been  a  source  of  grievous  suffering  to  me.  Nor  would 
it  be  delicate  for  me  to  expose  the  severer  wounds  which  these 
weekly  arrows,  unwittingly  winged,  have  made  in  the  tenderer 
heart  of  one  of  far  dearer  to  me  than  even  my  reputation.  If  there 
may  be  a  peaceable  close  of  this  controversy,  I  pray  that  it  may 
speedily  come.  I  hereby  call  upon  all  aggrieved  persons  rather 
than  to  prosecute  any  longer  a  war  with  these  paper  bullets,  to  call 
me  to  some  face-to-face  account,  that  the  matter  may  be  settled. 

Am  I  guilty  of  heresy  ?  I  wish  to  know  it.  Do  I  preach  the 
ministry  of  reconciliation,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  God  ?  I 
wish  to  do  it,  unbespattered  and  unsuspected. 

Towards  Mr.  Childs  I  have  not  the  slightest  ill-feeling.  I  think 
he  is  mistaken ;  and  had  he  consulted  with  me  I  think  we  could 
have  come  more  nearly  together.  That  God  will  speedily  bring 
this  matter  to  a  settlement,  that  he  will  guide  all  who  have  taken 
part  in  this  discussion  into  truth,  and  keep  them  in  good  faith  and 
temper,  and  more  especially  thus  bless  Mr.  Childs,  the  Eds.  of  Ob- 
server, Dr.  Vermilye  and  myself,  is  my  sincere  prayer. 

Very  respectfully^        Edwin  Pond  Parker. 

*lii  regard  to  this  addition  to  the  answer.  (1.)  If  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  had 
heard  it,  it  is  very  remarkable  that  they  make  no  reference  to  it  in  any  of  their  replies. 
(2.)  "We  have  the  direct  evidence  of  Dr.  Vermilye  and  Mr.  Childs  that  they  did  not 
hear  it,  and  Dr.  Vermilye  Avas  the  gentleman  to  whom  the  answer  was  given,  if  it  was 
given  at  all.  (3.)  Tlie  answer  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  admitted  exclamation 
of  Dr.  Hawes.  Accordmg  to  this  statement  Mr.  Parker  says  '  I  would  tell  the  dying 
sinner  of  Christ,'  and  Dr.  Hawes  exclaims, '  then  he  will  never  repent' — a  very  remark- 
able logical  inference ! 


39 

This  letter  was  accompanied  by  the  following  editorial  com- 
ments : — 

Eemarks  by  the  Editors. 

The  little  flings  in  the  first  paragraph  of  Mr.  Parker's  letter 
must  be  excused  on  account  of  the  writer's  youth,  and  not  be 
allowed  to  weaken  the  force  of  his  argument. 

Mr,  Parker  must  have  misapprehended  Drs,  Spring  and  Hawes, 
if  they  have  attempted  to  explain  to  him  personally  their  remarks 
respecting  his  views.     Their  language  is  this : 

"We  well  remember,  and  the  Council  will  remember,  that  Mr.  Parker  presented  in 
defence  of  his  possible  theory,  the  supposition  of  a  youth  educated  in  all  the  ignor- 
ance and  crime  of  the  "Five  Points,"  who  had  never  heard  of  the  way  of  salvation, 
and  yet  in  whose  moral  sensibilities  there  might  ^ill  remain  some  ground  for  the  hope 
that  if  Christ  were  understandingly  proposed  to  him  he  would  accept  the  Saviour. 
Such  an  one  he  would  not  shut  up  conclusively  to  present  faith  in  Christ  or  final  per- 
dition. We  do  not  defend  or  approve  his  views.  They  are  repulsive  to  our  moral 
sense.  We  had  rather  leave  such  a  case  where  the  Scriptures  have  left  it.  The  judge 
of  all  the  earth  will  do  right.  W^only  state  the  facts  as  they  can  easily  be  recalled  by 
every  member  of  the  Council." 

No  "slip  of  the  pen"  and  no  "omission"  can  make  this  language 
refer  to  anything  but  the  views  that  Mr.  Parker  expressed.  Drs. 
Spring  and  Hawes  declare  "we  do  not  defend  or  approve  his  views. 
They  are  repulsive  to  our  moral  sense."  And  so  they  are  to  the 
Christian  Church. 

Mr.~Parker  is  needlessly  sensitive  respecting  the  discussion  as  if 
it  mainly  concerned  him.  He  mistakes  the  point  entirely.  It  is 
not  what  he  believes,  that  the  public  "cares"  to  know.  The_  coun- 
cil, not  the  candidate,  is  now  before  the  public.  The  question  is 
"what  did  the  candidate  profess  to  believe,  or  not  believe  ivhen  un- 
der exctminationr  Perhaps  he  failed  to  express  his  sentiments,  and  all 
we  have  sought  to  learn  is  now  sufiiciently  proved  by  the  letters  of 
Messrs.  Spring,  Hawes,  Yermilye  and  Childs,  who  have  satisfied  all 
intelligent  minds  as  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  With  the  facts  before 
them,  the  Council  ordained  a  candidate  whose  views  on  a  vital 
point  in  the  gospel  they  do  not  "defend  or  approve."  If  nothing 
else  is  settled,  that  is. 

Mr.  Parker's  letter  makes  but  one  addition  to  the  testimony.  In 
reply  to  the  question,  would  you  shut  a  dying  sinner  up  to  &c.,  he 
said  "I  would  not."  So  the  witnesses  have  told  us.  He  now  adds 
''I  loouldtellhim  of  Christ,''  as  part  of  his  answer.  This  additional 
clause  does  not  help  the  case.  What  would  you  tell  him  of  Christ? 
Would  you  tell  him  he  must  now  believe  or  perish  ?  If  you  he- 
lieved  so,  you  would  tell  him  so :  if  you  do  not  believe  so,  you 
would  not  preach  the  gospel  to  that  poor  sinner.  _  But  the  exclama- 
tion of  Dr.  Hawes  shows  clearly  that  this  additional  clause  was 
not  heard  by  the  Council.  It  is  in  evidence  that  when  Mr.  P.  re- 
plied, "I  would  not,"  Dr.  Hawes  exclained,   ^^Then  he  would  never 


40 

repentP''  Now  we  repeat  the  reply  in  the  new  form  proposed,  "No, 
I  would  not :  I  would  tell  him  of  Christ."  And  Dr.  Hawes  ex- 
claims: "Then  he  would  never  repent,"  a  remark  that  would  be 
very  extraordinary  after  the  answer  suggested. 

Mr.  Parker  must  divest  himself  of  the  idea  that  the  public  has 
anything  to  do  with  him.  Let  him  by  a  faithful,  zealous,  and 
scriptural  exhibition  of  the  Gospel,  show  to  his  people  and  to  the 
Church  at  large,  that  his  views  have  been  totally  misapprehended : 
that  he  regards  with  abhorrence  the  idea  that  the  heathen  may  re- 
pent and  believe  after  they  are  dead  :  that  he  does  not  hold  even  the 
sentiments  which  the  council  believed  him  to  hold  when  they  or- 
dained him ;  and  this  unpleasant  affair  will  not  be  a  damage ;  it  will 
be  a  great  blessing  to  him. 

Here,  we  trust,  this  particular  discussion  will  be  suffered  to  rest. 
Other  cases  and  other  subjects  demand  our  space  and  attention. — 
We  have  great  reason  to  bless  God  that  this  matter  has  been 
brought  vcp  and  has  arrested  so  widely  the  attention  of  the 
churches.  The  discussion  has  already  ^Tone  vast  good.  The  de- 
velopment has  satisfied  the  most  incredulous  that  there  is  far  more 
ground  for  anxiety  than  they  supposed.  Orthodox  ministers  will 
be  more  careful  and  watchful  and  faithful.  Theological  teachers 
have  had  a  new  lesson  to  learn,  by  which  they  will  not  fail  to  im- 
prove. And  we  have  been  taught  to  be  more  vigilant,  earnest  and 
outspoken  in  defence  of  the  evangelical  doctrines  of  our  holy  re- 
ligion. 


April  26th  the  Observer  closed  the  controversy  with  the  folio w- 


mg  notes : — 


For  the   New   York   Observer. 

DES.  SPEING  AND  HAWES. 

Messrs.  Editors : — We  had  not  intended  to  draw  upon  your  in- 
dulgence, or  the  j)atience  of  your  readers,  any  further.  But  the 
construction  put  upon  one  expression,  in  our  last  communication, 
requires  a  brief  notice.  We  then  said,  "We  do  not  defend,  or  ap- 
prove his  (Mr.  Parker's)  views.  They  are  repulsive  to  our  moral 
sense."  This  remark,  you,  and  your  respected  correspondent  at 
East  Windsor,  will  perceive  was  expressly  lunited  to  a  suppositious 
case,  and  furnishes  no  ground  for  the  premature  triumph  that  we 
have  "  yielded  the  main  points  at  issue."  And  we  may  be  permit- 
ted to  claim  the  privilege  of  interpreting  our  own  admission.  It 
was  not  that  Mr.  Parker's  avowed  belief— including  his  creed,  and 
his  examination  as  a  whole — was  repulsive,  but  that  on  this  partic- 
ular point  he  put  forth  a  suggestion — or  rather  a  hope,  not  a  belief 
— which  we  could  not  adopt,  and  which  if  interpreted  as  had  been 
done,  and  we  thought  un&irly,  would  have  furnished  valid  reason 


■il 

for  his  rejection  by  the  Council.  Enough  had  been  said,  in  various 
parts  of  both  of  our  communications,  to  exempt  us  from  the  charge 
of  endorsing  even  his  cautious  and  modified  speculations  on  the 
subject  of  a  possible,  future  probation.  A  fair,  and,  as  we  intended, 
the  only,  construction  that  could  be  put  upon  our  admission  is, 
,that  his  views,  as  inteiyreted  hy  your  first  correspondent^  are  obnoxi- 
ous, and  would,  if  so  understood  by  us,  have  been  a  bar  to  our 
further  progress  in  the  ordination.  The  words  used  by  us  may 
seem  to  imply  more  than  this ;  but  then,  they  would  be  totally  at 
variance  with  what  we  have  elsewhere  abundantly  asserted ;  and 
our  brethren  will,  we  think,  hardly  allege  that  we  have  been  so 
grossly  inconsistent  as  in  the  same  communication  to  have  perpe- 
trated so  stolid  a  contradiction.  We  regret  that  our  decided  con- 
demnation of  the  construction  put  upon  Mr.  Parker's  views  by  his 
critics,  should  have  been  deemed  a  condemnation  of  the  candidate's 
belief.  We  should  have  indeed  stultified  ourselves,  and  have 
deserved  at  once  to  fo^-feit  the  confidence  of  the  churches,  if  such 
a  charge  could  be  righteously  alleged.  And  how  our  brethren, 
who  say  they  respect  us,  can  admit  such  a  reflection,  we  are  not  a 
little  perplexed  to  understand. 

Eespectfully  yours, 

Samuel  Speixg, 
J.  Hawes. 

Ttat  the  intelligent  reader  may  have  the  connection  in  which 
the  remark,  now  explained,  was  made,  we  subjoin  the  whole  para- 
graph from  the  former  letter  of  Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes. — Eds.  of 
Obs. 

"Such  were  the  circumstances  in  which  that  decisive  answer  was 
given.  By  the  very  circumstances  in  which  the  question  was  put, 
it  and  the  answer  were  limited  to  the  case  of  one  ignorant  of 
Christ.  We  well  remember,  and  the  council  will  remember,  that 
Mr.  Parker  presented,  in  defence  of  his  possible  theory,  the  suppo- 
sition of  a  youth,  educated  in  all  the  ignorance  and  crime  of  the 
"  Five  Points,"  who  had  never  heard  of  the  way  of  salvation,  and 
yet  in  whose  moral  sensibilities  there  might  still  remain  some 
ground  for  the  hope  that  if  Christ  were  understandingly  proposed 
to  him  he  would  accept  the  Saviour.  Such  an  one  he  woiddnot 
shut  up  conclusively  to  present  faith  in  Christ  or  final  perdition. 
We  do  not  defend  or  approve  his  views.  They  are  repulsive  to 
our  moral  sense.  We  had  rather  leave  such  a  case  where  the 
Scriptures  have  left  it.  The  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right. 
We  only  state  the  facts  as  they  can  easily  be  recalled  by  every 
member  of  the  council.  Any  other  construction  than  such  as  we 
have  here  put  upon  the  question  and  answer,  is  at  variance  with 
the  particular  topic  then  imder  discussion,  and  in  conflict  with  Mr. 
Parker's  statement  that  for  such  as  reject  Christ  there  is  no  hope." 


42 

For  the  New  York  Observer. 

REV.    MR.    CHILDS. 

Messrs.  Editors : — I  shall  not  burden  you  with  a  long  communi- 
cation. The  statements  of  both  sides  are  before  the  world.  I 
re-afiirm  the  truth  of  my  original  letter.  As  to  the  only  point  now 
at  issue,  if  it  be  understood  that  not  to  receive  an  offered  Christ  is  to 
reject  him,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end. 

My  object  now  is  to  correct  a  single  statement  in  the  last  letter 
of  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring.  The  rest  we  can  afford  to  jjass.  In 
their  substitution  of  remarkable  personalities  for  facts  and  argu- 
ments, they  say,  "Your  corresj)ondent  has  been  admitted,  with  all 
kindness,  and  without  the  suspicion  that  he  would  make  any  other 
than  a  friendy  and  honorable  use  of  the  confidence  thus  reposed  in 
him,  to  the  most  unreserved  disclosures  which  his  brethren  of  three 
denominations  in  the  city  have  made  of  their  views,"  &c. 

The  reference  is  to  certain  informal  meetings  of  the  pastors  of 
different  churches  in  the  city ;  and  the  implication  is,  that,  in  this 
controversy,  I  have  made  a  dishonorable  use  of  information  re- 
ceived at  these  meetings.  To  this  my  reply  is — (1.)  I  do  not  accept 
ministerial  fellowship  from  any  man  as  a  favor.  (2.)  The  ordina- 
tion of  Mr.  Parker  took  place  in  January  last.  I  have  not  attended 
one  of  the  meetings  referred  to  since  that  time,  nor  for  more  than 
a  year  previous.  This  Dr.  Hawes  knew  when  he  signed  the  letter. 
(3.)  I  made  use  of  no  information  in  my  statements  and  proofs, 
that  was  not  given  to  the  public  on  the  open  examination  of  Mr. 
Parker.*  Truly  yours, 

T.  S.  Childs. 

Hartford,  April  21,  1860. 


■   In  the  Presbyterian  Expositor  of  May  17th,  Mr.  Childs  replied  to 
Dr.  Spring  as  follows  : 

*  The  endeavor  of  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  to  break  the  force  of  Mr.  Childs'  testi- 
mony", in  the  manner  referred  to  in  the  above  note,  deserves  a  much  severer  reply  than 
Mr.  C.  has  given  it.  As  the  meetings  in  question  were  gatherings  of  Hartford  pas- 
tors, Dr.  Spring  could  have  known  nothing  of  them  personally,  and  had  no  right  to 
bear  witness  in  the  case.  As  they  were  mutual  gatherings,  it  was  as  much  a  favor  to 
Dr.  Hawes  to  be  "admitted"  to  them,  as  to  Mr.  Childs.  There  was  no  favor  in  the 
case,  and  the  claim'  is  pure  arrogance.  But  the  thing  assumes  a  worse  aspect  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Childs  had  entirely  loithdraivn  from  these  meetings  more  than  a  year 
before  the  present  events,  and  ttwkt  that  Dr.  Ilawes  knew  it! 

So  far,  therefore,  from  having  made  a  dishonorable  use  of  information  received,  Mr. 
Childs  has  confined  himself  carefully  to  facts  which  were  fairly  open  to  the  public, 
and  to  which  the  public  was  fully  entitled. 


For  the  Presbyterian  Expositor. 

THE  HAETFORD  OEDINATION. 

Rev.  Dk.  Rice — Dear  Sir : — I  have  refrained  from  noticing  the 
letter  of  Dr.  Spring,  in  regard  to  the  above  subject,  which  appeared 
in  the  Expositor  of  March  15th,  preferring  to  wait  till  the  evidence 
was  in.  As  the  controversy  seems  closed,  I  may  now  claim  that 
every  point  in  the  letter  which  appeared  in  the  Expositor  of  Feb. 
23d,  is  either  admitted  or  clearly  proved.  On  the  one  point  on 
which  the  defenders  of  the  Council  took  their  last  stand — namely, 
that  of  probation  after  death — it  is  clearly  admitted  by  Drs.  Hawes 
and  Spring,  that  there  were  some  impenitent  persons  to  whom  the 
candidate  was  supposed  to  be  ministering  on  a  death  bed,  whom 
he  would  not  shut  up  to  a  present  faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  hope 
of  salvation.  If,  (as  Dr.  Spring  I  presume  constantly  teaches,) 
not  to  receive  an  offered  Saviour  is  to  reject  him,  then  he  has 
granted  the  only  point  of  the  letter,  which  he  undertook  to  refute. 
In  view  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  it  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  either 
with  justice  or  Christian  courtesy,  his  strong  statements  that  my 
communication  "conveys  an  impression  totally  at  variance  tvith  the 
truth,^^  and  that  I  have  "  either  stolidly  misapprehended  or  wil- 
fully misrepresented  his  (the  candidate's)  views."  The  fact  is,  the 
worst  aspect  of  this  whole  case  is  not  yet  before  the  public ;  and 
with^the  exception  of  one  point,  it  is  not  an  uncommon  case.  I 
had  heard  the  public  examination  of  a  member  of  this  same  coun- 
cil who  was  himself  all  unsettled  as  to  a  state  of  eternal  punish- 
ment for  any.  Another  member  had  declared  on  his  examination, 
that  there  were  parts  of  the  Bible  which  were  not  inspired — had 
denied  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  original  sin — and  asserted  that 
man  had  natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe  independent  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  still  another  has  recently  said, 
while  preaching  in  a  Universalist  pulpit,  that  "  he  hoped  the  day 
would  come — and  that  day  was  not  far  distant — when  all  Christ- 
ian denominations  would  overcome  their  prejudices,  and  be  willing 
to  listen  to  the  preaching  of  any  Christian  minister  without  sacri- 
ficing their  own  ideas  upon  religious  matters ;  "  a  sentiment,  which, 
if  it  meant  anything,  distinctly  recognized  the  christian  character 
and  equal  standing  of  Universalism.  I  have  it  also  from  a  respon- 
sible source,  that  a  member  of  this  council  has  publicly,  in  his 
pulpit,  given  thanks  to  God  that  there  were  such  denominations  as 
the  Universalist  and  Unitarian,  to  modify  the  views  others  have 
of  God.  It  stands  uncontradicted  that  five  of  the  students  of 
Andover,  last  year,  lapsed  into  Universalism.  In  these  cases  we 
have  representatives  from  three  of  the  TJ4«ological  schools  of  New 
England,  viz:  Bangor,  New  Haven,  and  Andover.  These  are 
fearful  facts.  As  a  New  England  man,  I  have  no  pleasure,  but 
profound   grief   in   stating  them.     How  such  good  men  a-s  Dr. 


44 

Spring,  can  look  upon  them  with  indifference — how  in  view  of  the 
awful  issues  involved,  and  their  own  near  judgment,  they  can  ever 
appear  as  the  defenders  of  those  who  hold  any  such  views,  is  to 
me  amazing. 

In  regard  to  the  statements  of  the  Congregationalist^  which  refer 
to  me  as  the  author  of  the  exposures  of  the  New  England  theol- 
ogy, they  give  me  too  much  credit.  In  the  first  place  the  expos- 
ures began  long  before  I  had  entered  the  ministry.  In  the  second 
place,  until  this  ordination  I  do  not  remember  to  have  written  an 
article  for  the  papers,  except  two  or  three  brief  ones  upon  other 
subjects,  for  several  years.  Whether  the  facts  in  this  case  were 
such  as  to  justify  their  publication  will  be  judged  differently,  accord- 
ing as  men  value  the  truth  of  God,       Yours  truly, 

T    S    Childs. 

Hartford,  Ct.,  May  5,  1860. 


tvtt 


In  regard  to  the  issue  of  the  foregoing  controversy  we  suppose 
there  can  hardly  be  two  opinions.  The  defence  has  clearly  failed. 
They  have  failed,  in  the  first  place,  to  convict  the  author  of  the 
original  Letter  of  one  of  the  charges,  touching  his  veracity  or  his 
honor,  which  they  had  laid  against  him.  In  this  view  their  strong 
denials  and  bitter  personalities  are  quite  unjustifiable.*  In  reli- 
gious controversy  there  is  much  in  the  spirit  with  which  it  is  con- 
ducted. A  bad  spirit  is  presumptive  evidence  of  a  bad  cause.  No 
man  is  called  of  God  to  defend  His  truth  to  whom  He  does  not 
give  some  portion  of  His  spirit  for  the  work.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  a  man  gives  himself  up  to  error  or  to  the  defence  of  error, 
it  is~  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  dealings  that  he  should  be 
given  up  to  a  corresponding  temper. 

The  endeavor  to  invalidate  Mr.  Childs'  testimony,  by  a  reference 
to  his  ecclesiastical  position,  seems  to  us  neither  relevant  nor  fair. 
The  whole  community  were  invited  to  attend  Mr.  Parker's  exam- 
ination, that  they  might  judge  of  his  qualifications  for  the  office  to 
which  he  had  been  called.  If  the  result  had  been  favorable,  and 
Mr.  P.  had  passed  a  satisfactory  examination,  there  would  have 

*  Upon  this  point  the  Boston  Recorder,  which  will  not  be  accused  of  partiality 
towards  Mr.  Childs,  says,  (April  12th)  :— "Drs.  Spring  and  Hawes  have  appeared  in 
a  letter  of  nearly  two  closely  printed  columns,  in  explanation  of  the  course  which  they 
took  as  members  of  the  ordaining  Council,  and  illustrative  of  their  own  views  upon 
the  general  case.  In  the  course  of  their  communication  they  speak  frequently,  and  in 
terms  which  appear  to  us  stronger  than  were  called  for  by  the  circumstances,  of  the 
improper  spirit  of  the  author  of  the  first  Letter.  Their  language  is,  in  several  instan- 
ces, such  as  if  taken  in  its  full  meaning,  would  bring  on  him  an  odium  which  we  do 
not  think  his  course,  in  the  present  matter,  at  all  deserves,  and  we  believe  the  great 
Christian  public  are  with  us  in  this  opinion.  With  Mr.  Childs  we  have  no  acquaint- 
ance except  what  has  grown  out  of  this  single  affair,— we  have  never  seen  him,  and 
till  very  recently,  we  did  not  know  whether  he  was  a  minister  or  a  layman,  a  Presby- 
terian or  a  Congregationalist.  We  have  looked  upon  the  case  from  outside  the  circle 
of  excitement,  and  have  endeavored  to  judge  of  it  candidly,  and  in  the  fear  of  Him 
who  tries  the  hearts  of  men,  and  our  judgment  is,  that  while  Mr.  Childs  has  written 
earnestly,  he  is  not  to  be  charged  with  a  perverse  spirit,  or  a  desire  to  do  wrong  to 
Christian  brethren.  Truth  on  points  like  those  which  come  into  the  questions  raised 
by  this  discussion,  is  important,  and  worth  defending,  and  a  good  degree  of  earnest- 
ness should  be  allowed  to  a  writer  without  incurring  the  charge  of  perverseness  of 
spirit,  or  a  disposition  to  accuse  or  find  fault  with  his  brethren." 


46 

been  no  objection  to  its  being  published  by  any  man,  as  widely  as 
he  saw  fit.  Why,  then,  should  there  be  any  objection  when  the 
result  was  different  ?  Surely  the  public  were  not  less  interested  in 
it ;  nor  was  it  less  important  that  the  truth  should  be  known.  If 
the  facts  were  as  stated,  we  put  it  to  every  candid  man,  whether  it 
would  not  have  been  perfectly  competent  for  any  person  who  was 
present,  to  give  them  to  the  public ;  and  if  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter, in  answer  to  a  request  from  a  Congregational  brother,  writes 
his  honest  impressions  in  regard  to  the  examination,  and  that 
brother  believes  the  letter  sufficiently  important  to  justify  its  pub- 
lication, it  would  seem  quite  unworthy  grave  and  venerable 
men,  to  meet  its  statements  by  proclaiming  the  ecclesiastical  posi- 
tion of  the  writer. 

That  the  case  is  one  in  which  publicity  was  justifiable  will  now 
hardly  be  questioned.  It  was  a  public  act  of  a  public  Council ; 
from  which,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  there  is  no  appeal  except  to 
the  public.  The  propriety  of  such  appeal,  if  the  statements  were 
correct,  was  granted  by  the  parties  and  papers  which  have  most 
earnestly  taken  the  side  of  the  defence.  The  "  specifications  and 
proofs  "  were  demanded.*  It  was  insisted,  "  that  if  there  is  such 
unsoundness  among  us,  the  Christian  public  have  a  right  to  know 
the  facts.'''' \  This  is  correct ;  and  we  can  hardly  reconcile  it  with 
these  demands,  or  with  good  faith  to  the  public,  or  with  fairness  to 
the  parties  concerned,  or  with  fidelity  to  the  truth,  that,  when  the 
"specifications  and  proofs  "  which  they  had  demanded  were  given, 
and  the  "facts"  established,  these  papers  should  have  entirely 
refused  to  give  them  to  the  public. 

The  defence  has  failed  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  the 
controversy.  The  statements  of  the  original  Letter  are  maintained. 
Mr.  Parker  did  deny  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  he 
was  not  clear  on  the  Trinity  ;  he  rejected  the  common  doctrine  of 
Original  Sin ;  he  affirmed  the  ability  of  sinners  to  fulfil  the  com- 
mands of  Grod ;  he  maintained  that  the  gospel  was  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adult  heathen ;  he  held  that  Christ 
died  with  the  same  design  for  all  men  ;  and  he  inclined  to  the  belief 
that  for  some  who  died  impenitent  there  was  a  future  state  of  pro- 
bation. These  were  the  points  stated  in  Mr.  Childs'  letter ;  and  we 
think  it  will  be  generally  agreed  that  every  one  of  them  has  not 
only  been  proved,  but  has  been  really  admitted  by  the  defence. 
It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  Mr.  Parker  rejected  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ;  it  is  in  uncontroverted  evidence  that 
he  was  not  clear  on  the  Trinity — his  own  written  creed  showing 
that  he  so  far  "  doubted  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  person  "  as  to 
entirely  suppress  it.  It  is  admitted  by  all,  that  he  denied  holiness 
as  pertaining  to  the  nature  of  God,  and  sinfulness  as  pertaining  to 

*  Independent,  t  Congregationalist. 


47 

the  nature  of  man  ;  it  is  admitted  that  he  maintained  the  sinner's 
ability,  in  the  sense  of  '  adequate  power,'  to  fulfil  the  commands 
of  God ;  it  is  admitted  that  he  held  that  some  heathen  (as  Socrates 
for  example,)  have  gone  to  heaven  without  the  gospel ;  it  is  in  evi- 
dence, and  nndenied,  that  he  said  that  "  Christ  died  with  the  same 
design  for  Judas  Iscariot  as  for  Paul ;  "  it  is  admitted  that  there 
were  some  impenitent  persons  to  whom  Mr.  Parker  was  supposed 
to  be  ministering  on  a  death  bed,  whom  he  would  not  shut  up  to  a 
present  faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  hope  of  salvation. 

All  these  points  but  the  last  are  really  yielded,  not  only  in  detail 
but  in  a  mass,  in  the  second  communication  of  Drs.  Spring  and 
Hawes.  In  regard  to  the  last  point,  while  Mr.  Parker  is  to  be 
allowed  the  benefit  of  his  present  statements  for  himself,  this  can 
not  set  aside  the  whole  body  of  testimony  as  to  the  action  of  the 
Council.  In  all  that  testimony  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation, 
until  we  come  to  Mr,  Parker's  letter,  that  the  "  famous  question  " 
referred  to  the  propriety  of  a  certain  form  of  speech  to  be  used  to  a 
dying  man.  Neither  Drs.  Harris,  Hawes  or  Spring  undertake  any 
such  defence  as  that.  Everything  shows  that  the  examination  was 
on  no  such  trifling  matter  as  that.  Dr.  Vermilye  was  not  asking 
Mr.  Parker  whether  "in  his  instructions,  he  would  flash  the  ter- 
rors of , hell  fire  before  the  man's  face ;  "  he  was  not  asking  him  if 
he  "would  pass  judgment"  on  him;  he  was  asking  him  if  he 
would  shut  the  sinner  up  to  a  present  faith  in  Christ  as  the  only 
hope  of  salvation  !  Mr.  P.  now  says  "  I  would  close  every  door 
on  him  to  which  I  had  access,  but  that  of  faith  in  Christ."  Why 
does  he  say  "  to  luhich  I  had  access?  "  Does  it  intimate  that  there 
was  a  door  to  which  he  had  not  access,  and  which,  therefore,  he 
had  no  right  to  close  ?  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  evidence. 
Why  does  he  not  say  ^present  faith  in  Christ  ?  '  The  testimony  is 
that  his  hope  of  salvation  for  some  beyond  the  grave,  was  con- 
nected with  the  ofter  of  Christ  there.  His  statements,  therefore, 
are  not  contradictory  of  the  evidence.  Nay,  they  confirm  it.  For 
this  very  soul  upon  which  he  says  he  would  shut  every  door  to 
which  he  had  access  but  that  of  faith  in  Christ,  he  declares  he 
would  follow  into  the  eternal  world  with  "  hopes,"  even  if  he  saw 
the  sinner  die  with  "no  evidence  of  repentance" !  This  is  enough. 
It  settles  the  case.  Mr.  Parker  could  not  follow  an  impenitent  soul 
into  eternity  with  hope  unless  "he  inclined  to  the  belief "  that 
there  was  hope  for  it  there  !  And  this  is  a  soul,  let  it  be  observed, 
to  whom  Mr.  P.  is  ministering.  The  explanation  of  the  members 
of  the  Council,  that  the  reference  was  to  one  who  had  never  heard 
of  Christ,  is,  in  itself,  a  contradiction.  He  was  one  to  whom  Mr. 
Parker  was  actually  preaching  Christ.  He  was  one  whom  he  was 
supposed  to  meet  in  the  actual  discharge  of  his  pastoral  duties.  It 
was  a  practical  question  of  practical  life.  But  the  evidence  does  not 
rest  upon  this  question.      There  is,  as  Dr.  Vermilye  has  said,  a  mass 


48 

of  testimony  quite  distinct  from  this  which,  stands  unrefuted.  It 
is  a  very  significant  thing,  to  which  the  defence  does  not  even 
allude,  that  Mr.  P's  views  had  such  hold  upon  his  mind  that 
they  had  found  their  way  into  Ids  loritten  creed,  and  that  he  under- 
took to  explain  the  articles  of  the  church  in  accordance  with  them.  A 
defence  in  the  face  of  such  facts  is  either  mere  trifling  or  sheer 
desperation. 

Now  the  question  arises.  Is  a  person  in  the  state  of  mind  in 
which  Mr.  Parker  was,  on  the  eleventh  day  of  January,  1860,  to 
be  regarded  as  a  qualified  teacher  of  an  orthodox  Congregational 
Church  ?  In  examining  this  question,  we  must  notice  one  or  two 
views  that  have  been  presented. 

Prof  Harris  says  {Bost.  Bee.  March  1st.)  "The  simple  question," 
in  such  examination  of  a  candidate,  "is,  are  his  christian  belief  and 
christian  character  such  that  he  is  worthy  to  be  ordained  as  a  min- 
ister of  Christ?"  According  to  this  principle,  a  Congregational 
Council  is  bound  to  settle  over  a  Congregational  Church  any  Meth- 
odist, Baptist,  Presbyterian,  or  Episcoj^alian  who  may  apply,  if 
"his  christian  belief  and  christian  character  are  such  that  he  is 
worthy  to  be  ordained  as  a  minister  of  Christ!"  The  implication 
here  is  that  Congregationalism  has  no  distinctive  principles  what- 
ever. This  is  certainly  liberal ;  but  it  is  a  liberality  that  will  work 
the  ruin  of  any  organization  adopting  it. 

Much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  fact  that  Mr.  Parker  had  not 
a  definite  faith  upon  certain  points,  as  for  example,  the  Trinity, 
and  a  future  state  of  probation.  Because  he  was  not  prejDared 
absolutely  to  o^eject  the  tri-personality  of  the  Godhead ;  because  he 
did  not  positively  believe  that  the  impenitent  dead  would  have  a 
chance  of  salvation  beyond  the  grave,  his  orthodoxy,  it  is  argued, 
is  not  to  be  called  in  question. 

Now  this  is  the  very  point.  Is  a  man  to  be  regarded  as  sound 
in  the  faith  who  is  not  settled  upon  these  points  ?  Is  he  qualified 
for  the  ministry  of  an  evangelical  church  if  he  has  not  a  definite 
faith  upon  all  the  great  fundamental  truths  of  the  gosj^el?  How 
preposterous  is  it  for  a  man  to  teach  others  to  "continue  in  the 
faith,  grounded  and  settled,"  who  is  himself  all  unsettled  !  We  care 
not  what  a  man's  talents  or  personal  character  may  be,  if  Christ 
has  not  taught  him  the  great  substantial  truths  of  His  gospel,  He 
has  not  yet  called  him  to  preach  that  gospel ;  and  no  man  has  a 
right  to  ask  entrance  to  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  and  no 
Council  has  a  right  to  grant  such  entrance,  unless  the  promise  of 
Christ  has  been  fulfilled,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been  given  to  lead 
the  man  into  all  essential  truth.  This  we  regard  as  a  primary 
principle  in  the  gospel  ministry.  It  can  never  be  rejected  or  neg- 
lected without  peril. 

Where  these  qualifications  are  wanting,  the  least  that  any  man 
who  desires  the  ministry  can  do,  is  to  wait  until  they  are  obtained ; 


49 

and  the  least  that  any  Council  can  do,  in  such  a  case,  is  to  require 
the  man  to  wait ;  rather  than  by  endorsing  his  errors  and  confirm- 
ing him  in  them,  inflict  upon  him,  as  well  as  upon  the  cause  of 
truth  and  of  Christ,  a  great  and  lasting  injury. 

Mr.  Parker  was  endorsed  by  one  of  the  most  respectable  Coun- 
cils of  New  England ;  and  he  was  endorsed,  not  with  one  or  two 
diversities  from  the  evangelical  faith,  but  with  the  whole  series 
presented  before.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Council,  neither  one  nor  all  these  views  combined,  now  constitute  a 
bar  to  good  and  regular  standing  in  the  Congregational  ministry. 
Nor  does  this  case  stand  alone.  It  appears  from  the  facts  brought 
out  in  this  controversy,  that  men  may  deny  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  boldly  affirming  that  parts  of  the  Bible  are  not 
inspired ;  may  be  all  unsettled  as  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punish- 
ment ;  may,  in  Universalist  pulpits,  recognize  the  Christian  char- 
acter and  standing  of  Universalism ;  may  deny  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  ;  may  affirm  the  sinner's  ability  to  do  all  that  God  re- 
quires of  him  independent  of  Christ  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  may 
do  all  this  without  prejudicing  their  claim  to  ordination  or  to  a  full 
position  in  the  Christian  ministry.  These  are  startling  facts.  The 
churches  cannot  safely  sleep  under  them  much  longer.* 

Yet  it, is  not  easy  for  many  good  men  among  us  to  believe  that 
there  is  any  serious  peril.  They  are  told  that  there  is  no  change ; 
that  the  same  doctrines  are  taught  now  that  have  been  held  from 
the  first ;  that  the  cry  of  danger  is  a  vain  alarm.  Dr.  Hawes,  for 
example,  in  his  last  reconciliation  with  Dr.  Bushnell,  {Religious 
Herald^  June  Ist^  1854,)  says,  "I  remain  in  the  faith  in  which  I 
entered  the  ministry;  in  the  faith  in  ichich  the  church  ivas planted, 
which  it  has  been  7ny  privilege  to  serve  7iotu  thirty -six  years  ;  andivhich 
is  held  by  the  great  body  of  evangelical  churches  and  ^ministers  in  New 
England^  Dr.  Hawes  thus  claims  for  himself,  and  for  those  who 
agree  with  him,  the  original  faith  of  the  New  England  churches. 
And  this  is  the  claim,  made  everywhere  so  confidently  and  freely, 
that  has  secured  general  belief,  and  acquiesence  in  the  present 
state  of  things  in  the  churches.     Efibrts  to  effect  a  change  for  the 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  a  short  time  previous  to  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Parker, 
Dr.  Hawes  himself  had  publicly  expressed  great  anxiety  in  reference  to  the  state  of 
the  Congregational  churches.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Congregational  Board  of  Publica- 
tion in  Boston  he  preached  a  sermon,  a  brief  report  of  which  was  published.  We 
cannot  now  lay  our  hand  upon  the  report,  but  we  recollect  distinctly  some  of  its  points. 
Congregationalisnc,  he  maintained,  had  two  great  wants,  a  common  creed  and  a  better 
organization.  We  liave,  he  said,  no  common  standards  and  no  common  bond  of  unity. 
To  the  question, 'what  is  Congregationalism,' we  cannot  give  an  answer.  There  are 
great  divergencies  in  faith  and  practice  among  us.  Independency  has  n©  foundation  in 
reason  or  scripture — in  nature  or  grace.  We  must  have  a  change,  he  urged,  or  we 
shall  loose  our  hold  on  the  conservative  and  thoughtful,  and  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
rash  and  the  radical.  These  were  Dr.  Ilawes'  sentiments  then.  We  can  hardly 
understand  how,  within  less  than  a  year  from  that  time,  he  could  ridicule  Mr.  Childs' 
expressions  of  anxiety  upon  the  same  subject  as  "dolorously  soloistic." 


50 

better  have  been  met  by  the  cry  of  "Presbyterianisni — Princetonism 
— Triangular  Theology,"  &c.,  and  those  who  have  seriously  believed 
that  there  was  a  drifting  away  from  the  old  foundations,  and  have 
endeavored  earnestly  and  conscientiously  to  prevent  it,  have  been 
held  up  as  hostile  to  New  England  and  her  theology. 

Now  it  is  this  claim  that  we  propose  to  examine  briefly  in  the 
light  of  the  present  controversy  ;  and  in  doing  so  we  shall  be  di- 
rectly on  the  line  of  our  main  inquiry — the  action  of  the  Council 
in  ordaining  Mr.  Parker  over  an  orthodox  Congregational  church. 

The  first  question  is,  What  is  the  true  New  England  theology  ? 
The  second  is.  What  doctrines  are  now  held,  and  what  were  en- 
dorsed by  the  Hartford  Council  ? 

Fortunately  we  have  no  difficulty  in  determining  the  first  of 
these  questions.  The  original  theology  of  New  England  is  settled. 
It  was  declared  again  and  again  by  solemn  synodical  action ;  and 
was  confirmed  by  the  preaching  of  the  whole  body  of  ministers  to 
whom,  under  God,  New  England  owes  so  much. 

The  synod  which  formed  the  Cambridge  Platform  met  in  1648 ; 
the  ministers  and  churches  of  Connecticut  taking  part  in  its  action. 
This  synod  unanimousJy  adopted  the  "  Westmi7ister  Confission  of 
Faith,^^  as  expressing  the  doctrinal  belief  of  the  ministers  and 
churches  of  New  England.  This  is  the  present  standard  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  In  1680,  a  second  synod  in  Boston  adopted 
the  )Savoi/  Confession^  which,  in  articles  of  faith,  is  almost  identical 
with  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  synod  "in  fact  adopted 
both  Confessions  in  one."  "After  the  example  of  the  synod  of 
1680,  the  churches  and  ministers  of  Connecticut,  in  1708,  met  in 
a  consociated  Council  and  gave  their  consent  to  the  Westminster 

and  Savoy  Confessions  both After  the  adoption  of  the 

Saybrook  Platform,  'the  ministers  of  Connecticut,  in  their  public 
Conventions,  several  times  renewed  their  consent  to  this  Confession 
of  Faith,'  zuhich  remains  as  it  tuas  tvJien  if  first  received  their  ap- 
jrrobation,  and  as  it  was  tuhen  it  ivas  approved  hy  the  Neiv  England 
Churches. '''"'' 

The  "Congregational  Order"  containing  the  standards  of  the  Con- 
gregational Churches  of  Connecticut,  was  issued  by  order  of  the 
General  Association  of  Connecticut  as  late  as  1811 ;  and  approved 
by  the  General  Association  of  Massachusetts  the  same  year.  We 
shall  make  this  the  basis  of  our  examination.  It  is  of  course 
perfectly  proper  to  test  the  faith  of  ministers  and  churches  by 
their  own  standards. 

I.  In  regard  to  Inspiration.  The  Congregational  Confession 
after  enumerating  the  books  of  the  Bible,  says,  "o?^  which  are  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life."t  And 
again,  "The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew, and  the  New  Tes- 

*  Congregational  order  :     Hist,  account,  &c.,  p.  16.        t  Chap.  1,  Sec.  2. 


51 

tament  in  Greek, being  immediately  inspired  by  God,"  &c.* 

The  New  England  fathers  never  thought  of  doubting  the  perfect 
plenary  inspiration  of  Scripture.  They  held  with  Robinson,  the 
father  of  their  churches,  that  "the  Scriptures  have  the  Spirit  of  God 
for  the  author  both  of  matter  and  manner  and  ioritingJ''-\f  They 
beheved  that  what  inspired  men  wrote,  they  wrote,  "not  in  the 
WORDS  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth."     I.  Cor.  2  :  13. 

This  verbal  inspiration  Mr.  Parker  emphatically  rejected,  and  in 
his  rejection  was  sustained  by  the  Council.  Nor  would  it  seem 
now  to  be  an  imcommon  case  for  candidates  to  be  licensed  and  or- 
dained, who  openly  declare  that  parts  of  the  Bible  are  not  inspired. 

II.  The  teaching  of  the  Congregational  Confession  in  regard  to 
the  Trinity  has  been  quoted  in  Mr.  Childs'  letter,  (p.  15.) 

III.  Upon  the  subject  of  /SV??.,  we  give  the  whole  chapter  of  the 
Confession;  omitting  the  scripture  proofs,  for  which  we  would 
refer  our  readers  to  the  volume  itself,  (^jjo.  180-182.) 

Confession  of  Faith,    Chapter   VI. 
"  Of  the  Fall  of  Man  ;    of  Sin  ;    and  of  the  Punishment  thereof." 

I.  "God  having  made  a  covenant  of  works  and  life  thereupon,  Avith  our  first 
parents,  and  all  their  posterity  in  them,  they  being  seduced  by  the  subtilty  and  temp- 
tation of  Satan,  did  wilfully  transgress  the  law  of  their  creation,  and  break  the  cove- 
nant in  eating  the  forbidden  fmit. 

II.  By  this  sin  they,  and  we  in  them,  fell  from  original  righteousness  and  communion 
with  God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties  and  parts 
of  soul  and  body. 

III.  They  being  the  root,  and  by  God's  appointment  standing  in  the  room  and 
stead,  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed,  to 
all  their  posterity  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation. 

IV.  From  this  original  corruption  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions. 

V.  This  corruption  of  nature  during  this  life,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regen- 
erated ;  and  although  it  be  through  Christ  pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself  and 
all  the  motions  thereof  are  truly  and  properly  sin. 

VI.  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous 
law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject 
to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal." 

These  are  the  professed  doctrines  of  the  Congregational  churches. 
Compare  now  with  these  the  doctrines  avowed  by  Mr.  Parker  and 
endorsed  by  the  Hartford  Council.  "He  declined  to  predicate  sin 
of  the  nature  of  man."  "I  do  not  believe,"  says  Mr.  Parker,  "that 
man  is  blameworthy  either  for  his  nature,  or  its  hereditary  corrup- 
tion." {Creed.)     This  is  a  distinct  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  orig- 

*  Chap.  1,  Sec.  8.  \  Works,  Vol.  1,  pp.  44-5. 


52 

iual  sin.  lu  this  rejectioa  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  heartily  unite. 
"Who  does  believe  so  ?"  they  say,  "or  who  can  believe  otherwise 
than  this  article  (of  Mr.  P.)  expresses?"  If  they  really  wish  to 
know,  we  tell  them  that  the  whole  evangelical  church  of  God  'can 
believe  otherwise';  that  all  the  fathers  of  the  New  England  churches 
did  believe  otherwise ;  that  their  own  Confession  of  Faith  teaches 
otherwise  ;  and — if  we  may  come  down  to  a  more  limited  sphere 
— that  the  whole  line  of  pastors  of  the  First  Church  of  Hartford 
down  to  the  days  of  Dr.  Hawes  have  believed  otherwise. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Connecticut  churches  says,  in  re- 
gard to  the  original  corruption  of  nature,  ^'•Both  itself  and  all  the 
motions  thereof  AU^  truly  AND  PROPERLY  SIN;"  and  "every  sin, 

both  original  and  actual doth  in  its  own  nature  bring 

guilt  upon  the  sinner,  wherehy  he  is  hound  over  to  the  larath  of  God 
and  curse  of  the  laiu,  and  so  made  subject  to  death  with  all  miseries, 
spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal." 

We  presume  we  shall  not  be  contradicted  in  saying  that  Dr. 
Hawes  is  the  first  of  the  honored  line  of  pastors  of  the  First  Church 
of  Hartford,  who  has  rejected  the  great  and  fundamental  doctrine 
of  Original  Sin  !  Thomas  Hooker  was  the  first  of  those  pastors. 
Dr.  Nathan  Strong  was  the  last,  preceding  Dr.  Hawes.* 

To  give  the  full  testimony  of  these  men  to  this  doctrine  would 
require  a  volume  rather  than  a  pamphlet  page.  Take  the  following 
as  a  specimen  of  the  teachings  of  the  venerated  Hooker.  To  the 
sinner  whom  he  would  direct  to  Christ,  he  says,  "Say — O  Lord,  I 
have  a  cursed  nature  ;  and  though  there  were  no  devil,  no  world, 
no  temptations  outwardly,  yet  this  cursed  nature  of  mine  would  sin 
against  thee."     "Dosttho'u  say  it  is  thy  nature  to  sin  ?     Then  I  say, 

the  greater  is  thy  wickedness ; Therefore  rather  mourn 

the  more  for  thy  sins,  hecause  it  is  thy  cursed  nature  so  to  do^  ("Soul's 
Preparation  for  Christ."  pp.  40-41.) 

The  writings  of  Dr.  Strong  are  burdened  with  the  deep  and 
awful  and  sinfvX  depravity  of  human  nature.  "Both  experience 
and  Scripture  testimony,"  he  says,  "afford  abundant  conviction  that 
every  creature  of  the  human  race,  is,  from  the  beginning,  possessed  of  a 
nature  corrujyt  and  GUILTY."  ( Sermon  at  the  ordination  of  Joseph 
Strong.)  "  The  need  of  regeneration  implies  the  natural  and  total 
luickedness  of  the  hearth     (Sermons,  vol.  2,  p.  158.) 

*Mr.  Hooker  was  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  New  England  ministers.  The  estimation 
in  which  he  was  held  in  the  Keformed  Church,  may  be  judged  from  the  fact  that  he 
was  invited  to  sit  as  a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  His  church  at  Hart- 
ford was  the  first  in  Connecticut ;  and  "embraced  the  territory  now  occupied  by  the 
churches  of  the  city  ;  of  East  Hartford  and  of  West  Hartford."  'This  fact  is  of  interest 
as  showing  "the  Faith  in  which"  all  "these  churches  were  planted." 

Dr.  Strong  was  one  of  the  leading  ministers  of  New  England  at  the  close  of  the 
last  century  and  the  commencement  of  the  present.  The  relation  of  the  First  Church 
of  Hartford,  therefore,  to  the  other  churches  of  Connecticut,  and  especially  to  those 
represented  in  the  Council  which  ordained  Mr.  Parker,  justifies  our  special  reference 
to  its  original  faith. 


53 

All  men,  lie  affirms,  ^^  corne  into  the  world  with  sinful  hearts,^^ 
and  "  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of  any  exercises  in  the  human 
heart  that  are  pleasing  to  God,  they  ascribe  them  to  an  origin  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  a  total  moral  corruption  of 
human  nature.''^     (Sermon  on  Depravity.) 

Dr.  Hawes  maintains  that  "a  child,  properly  speaking,  has  no 
character."  "Character,"  he  says,  "is  not  anything  which  is  born 
with  us  or  makes  an  essential,  constituent  part  of  us.  It  is  not  in- 
herited by  birth,  nor  transmitted  by  natural  descent  from  parent  to 
child."     (Sermon  on  Character,  &c.,  pp.  6,  8.) 

Dr.  Strong  says,  "  The  natural^  unholy  character  of  man  is  an 
essential  truth  to  he  plainly  taught  by  Christian  minister s^  "If 
this  doctrine  be  false,"  he  maintains,  "the  whole  gospel  is  false; 
and  in  the  same  proportion  as  men  believe  the  reality,  the  exten- 
siveness  and  the  guiltiness  of  our  natural  character  in  the  sight  of 
God,  they  will  see  the  need  of  a  gospel,"  &c.*  Dr.  Hawes  denies 
the  naturally  sinful  character  of  men.  Dr.  Strong  maintains  that 
such  denial  involves  the  denial  of  the  whole  gospel.  And  yet  Dr. 
Hawes  says  he  "  remains  in  the  faith  in  which  his  church  was 
planted ! " 

ly.  In  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Ability^  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring 
say: 

"Afl  to  what  the  letter  charges,  that  the  candidate  holds  that  every  man  has  ability, 
in  the  sense  of  '  adequate  power,'  to  fulfill  the  commands  of  God — let  that  speak  for 
itself.  It  is  accounted  no  deadly  heresy,  at  least  in  this  part  of  the  country,  to  hold 
that  man  has  power  to  do  what  God  commands  him  to  do  ;  or  that  he  cannot  be  justly 
blamed  or  punished  for  not  doing  impossibilities  ;"  (p.  9 — note). 

This  is  the  plain,  unambiguous  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  ple- 
nary ability.  It  is  not  even  shaded  by  the  distinction  of  "  natural " 
and  "moral  ability."f 

*  Sermons  at  the  ordinations  of  J.  Strong  and  of  J.  L.  Skinner. 

t  It  is  well  known  that  since  the  days  of  Edwards,  many  have  used  the  term  "  natu- 
ral ability,"  as  he  did,  to  denote  simply  moral  agency,  without  intending  at  all  to  deny 
the  sinner's  real  and  utter  inability  to  the  great  end  of  his  own  salvation,  or  his  abso- 
lute dependence  on  the  Holy  Spirit  for  every  saving  grace.  It  is  equally  well  known 
that  others — of  late  especially — have  taken  advantage  of  this,  to  foist  in  and  establish 
the  doctrine  of  the  sinner's  full  and  complete  ability  in  himself  to  meet  all  ths  require- 
ments of  God  ;  and  that  they  have  claimed  for  this  doctrine  the  support  of  men,  living 
and  dead,  by  whom  their  views  have  ever  been  held  in  abhorrence.  The  late  venerable 
Dr.  Tyler  suffered  much  from  this  source.  Adopting  the  common  phraseology  of 
"natural  ability,"  (by  which  he  afSrmed,  however,  he  "  meant  nothing  more  than  the 
possession  of  those  faculties  wiiich  are  essential  to  moral  agency,")  he  whs  claimed  as 
an  ally  by  men  and  schools  whose  principles  he  utterly  repudiated.  His  name  was 
employed  to  sanction  doctrines  which  his  soul  loathed.  It  was  in  view  of  this,  as  we  un- 
derstand it,  that  he  remarked  at  the  close  of  his  life,  "that,  inasmuch  as  some  terms 
used  by  him  many  years  ago,  were  now  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  and  their  meaning 
perverted,  he  should  substitute  other  terms  for  them,  or  be  more  cautious  in  using  them 
without  careful  explanation."     (Memoir,  p.  108.) 

May  it  not  be  wise  for  us  to  receive  the  suggestion  of  this  venerated  man  ?  Inas- 
much as  the  term  "  natural  ability"  is  "  misunderstood  and  its  meaning  perverted  " — 
inasmuch  as  moral  ability  is  really  the  only  ability  that  comes  into  the  question — inas- 


54 

It  is  the  assertion,  as  clear  as  words  can  make  it,  that  it  is  no 
heresy  here  to  hold  that  the  sinner  has  full  power  to  make  himself 
a  new  heart ;  to  repent ;  to  believe  in  Christ ;  to  be  holy  as  God  is 
holy.  For  all  these  things  "God  commands  him  to  do."  This  teach- 
ing is,  of  course,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  word  of  God.  "A 
new  heart  will  I  give  you;"  "Christ  has  been  exalted  to  give  re- 
pentance;" "Faith  is  the  gift  of  God;"  are  passages  which,  with 
hundreds  more  of  the  same  nature,  the  Evangelical  Church  has 
ever  been  wont  to  regard  as  indicating  the  absolute  dependence  of 
men  upon  the  sovereign  grace  of  God  for  these  gifts.  Of  course 
there  can  be  no  such  dependence  if  every  man  "  has  power  to  do 
all  that  God  commands  him  to  do."  We  are  then  driven  to  the 
ground  that  has  been  openly  taken  among  us,  that  there  is  no  abso- 
lute necessity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  and  save  the  soul ! 

God  commands  all  men  to  come  to  Christ.  If  God  commands 
it,  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  say  they  can  do  it.  Against  this  asser- 
tion we  must  receive  the  equally  positive  one  of  Christ  himself: 
"  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
draw  him."     (John  6 :  44.) 

The  doctrine  of  ability  is  also  in  express  contradiction  of  the 
standards  of  Congregationalism. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  (chap.  9,  sec.  8,)  says : 

"Man  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual 
good  accompanying  salvation,  so  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that 
good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare 
himself  thereunto." 

And  again  :    (chap.  16,  sec.  3,) 

"  Their  (believers')  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but  wholly  from 
the  Spirit  of  Christ." 

See  also  chap.  6,  sec.  4,  already  quoted,  p.  51. 

Thomas  Hooker,  in  a  discourse  upon  Luke  1 :  17,  proposes  to 
establish,  among  others,  the  following  points: — "That  a  man  must 
will  to  receive  Christ  and  grace  before  he  can  receive  them.  That  no 
man  of  himself,  voluntarily,  am  luill  that  he  may  receive  Christ. 
Lastly,  that  God  ivill  loork  a  will  in  his  servants  to  receive  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

God  commands  all  men  everywhere  to  repent.  According  to  the 
doctrine  endorsed  by  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring,  if  God  commands  it, 
it  is  in  their  own  power.     Hooker  says,  "If  thou  didst  consider 

much  as  "  natural  ability,"  after  all,  leaves  the  sinner  at  an  infinite  remove  from  the 
end  in  view,  namely,  his  regeneration  and  salvation,  and  therefore  is  not  in  any  proper 
sense  an  ability  to  this  end — inasmuch  as  "  moral  agency"  can  be  maintained  in  per- 
fect consistency  with  the  sinner's  true  inability  and  his  absolute  dependence  on  Divine 
grace — inasmuch  as,  by  persisting  in  the  use  of  the  term,  we  are  now  obviously  and 
strongly  playing  into  the  hands  of  errorists,  may  it  not  be  wise  and  right  to  lay  it  aside 
and  unite  with  the  great  body  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  in  affirming  simply 
the  sinner's  inability  "  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation." 


55 

thy  own  weakness  thou  wouldst  not  say  that  repentance  is  in  thine 
own  power.  Eemember  what  the  apostle  says :  If  peradventure 
God  would  give  repentance,  &c.""^ 

God  requires  of  sinners  a  change  of  heart.  This  also  must  of 
course  be  in  their  own  power  if  they  can  do  all  that  God  requires. 
Dr.  Strong  contends  that  "  men  cannot  change  their  own  hearts :" 
"Sinners,"  he  says  "may  imagine  they  can  turn  when  they  please; 
but  they  will  never  jjfcase  to  turn  until  they  are  turned  hj  Almighty 
power  f  and  he  adds :  "I  do  not  see  how  those  who  deny  the  need 
of  a  new  heart,  or  the  necessity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  give  this  heart, 
can  afterwards  come  forward  and  call  themselves  sound  believers 
in  Christ  or  of  the  Scripture."f 

If  it  be  said  that  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  ability  do  not 
deny  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit,  we  ask  how  that  can  be  ?  If  the 
sinner  has  in  himself  "adequate  power"  to  fulfil  the  commands 
of  God,  what  possible  necessity  can  there  be  for  any  more  power  ? 
If  he  can  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,  it  is  enough ;  he  needs 
no  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  the  necessary,  logical  issue  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  sinner's  ability.  It  destroys  the  whole  system  of  grace.  If 
that  system  is  to  stand,  this  doctrine  must  be  modified  so  as  really 
to  mean  'no  ability,'  or  it  must  be  given  up.  For  ourselves,  we 
choose  to  unite  in  the  confession  of  Inspiration  and  of  the  Evangelical 
Church,  and  say,  "We  are  not  sufficient  of  ourselves  to  think  any- 
thing, as  of  ourselves ;  but  our  sufficiency  is  of  God."     (2  Cor.  3:5.) 

To  say  that  a  sinner  has  any  real  ability  or  adequate  i^ower  to  do 
all  that  God  requires  of  him,  is  contradictory  not  only  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  universal  faith  of  the  Church,  but  to  all  true  Christian 
experience.  God  requires  us  to  be  holy  as  He  is  holy.  Every  true 
Christian  knows  that  he  is  not  holy,  and  he  knows  that  he  cannot 
make  himself  holy.  He  knows  that  nothing  but  Almighty  j)ower 
and  grace  can  make  him  holy.  To  tell  him  otherwise,  is  to  contra- 
dict the  deepest  convictions  of  his  Christian  consciousness  and  the 
teachings  of  the  Spirit  of  God  within  him. 

V.  In  reference  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen,  we  quote  simply 
this  article  of  the  Confession.     (Chap.  10,  sec.  4.) 

"  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and 
may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit,  yet  not  being  effectually  drawn  by 
the  Father,  they  neither  do  nor  can  come  unto  Christ,  and  therefore  can  not  be  saved  ; 
much  less  can  men  not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  other  ivajj  whatso- 
ever, he  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the 
law  of  that  reliqion  they  do  profess;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may,  is  very  per- 
nicious, and  to  be  detested." 

If  any  intelligent  man  chooses  seriously  to  say  that  this  is  the 

*Soul  fitted  for  Christ,  p.  50. 

t  Sermon  at  ordination  of  J.  L.  Skinner ;  and  Sermons,  vol.  1,  p.  262. 


56 

same  doctrine  that  was  promulged  by  Mr,  Parker  on  his  ordina- 
tion, and  has  since  been  taught  from  his  pulpit,  it  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  argue  the  point.  Argument  would  go  very  little  ways 
with  one  who  could  see  no  difference  between  the  above  article, 
and  the  doctrine  that  a  heathen,  the  last  act  of  whose  life  was  one 
of  gross  idolatry,  'undoubtedly  went  to  heaven!' 

VI.  Touching  the  design  of  Ghrisfs  death,  the  Congregational 
Confession  says : 

"As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he  by  the  eternal  and  most 
free  purpose  of  his  will  fore-ordained  all  the  means  thereunto.  Wherefore  they  who 
are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  effectually  called  unto 
faith  in  Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season,  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified, 
and  kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed 
by  Christ,  or  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect 
only."     (Chap.  3,  sec.  6.) 

Robinson,  the  father  of  New  England  Congregationalism,  says : 
"  Christ  died  effectually  and  in  his  and  his  Father's  intention  of 
love,  for  them  only  that  are  saved."     (Works,  v.  1,  pp.  333,  334.) 

"Do  you  think,  brethren,"  says  Thomas  Shepard,  one  of  the 
greatest  and  holiest  of  the  New  England  fathers ;  "Do  you  think 
that  Christ's  blood  was  shed  to  work  no  more  in  his  people  than  in 
hypocrites?  ...  If  Christ  should  have  died  as  much  for 
Judas  as  for  Peter,  .  .  then  Peter  had  no  more  cause  of  bless- 
ing Christ  for  his  love  in  redeeming  him  than  Judas !"  (Works, 
V.  2,  pp.  208,  209.) 

"Christ,"  says  Hooker,  "will  not  miss  his  end;  he  came  for  the 
lost  slice]) ;  then  the  lost  sheep  he  will  have ;  and  though  the  lost 
sheep  can  not  seek  nor  save  themselves,  yet  Christ  will  save  them." 

"  Christ  never  prayed  for  the  world,  and  he  will  never  save  the 
world."     (Soul's  Prep,  for  Christ,  pp.  39,  159.) 

When  Christ  shall  appear  with  all  his  ransomed  church  before 
the  Father  in  glory,  Edwards  represents  him  as  saying,  "  Here  am 
I,  and  the  children  which  thou  hast  given  me;"  "as  much  as  to 
say,"  Edwards  adds,  "Here  am  I,  with  every  one  of  those  whom 
thou  gavest  me  from  eternity  to  take  care  ofj  that  they  might  be 
redeemed  and  glorified ;  and  to  redeem  whom,  I  have  done  and  suf- 
fered so  much,"  &c.     (Works  v.  1,  p.  504.) 

"  Christ,"  says  Dr.  Strong,  "  has  suffered  and  become  a  ransom 
for  all  those  who  are  hisJ''     (Sermons,  v.  1,  p.  131.) 

This  was  the  doctrine  of  all  the  New  England  fathers,  and  of 
the  New  England  churches.  It  was  the  faith  in  which  the  First 
Church  of  Hartford  was  "planted."  The  founders  of  that  Church 
with  the  whole  body  of  their  co-laborers  in  New  England,  believed 
that  God  will  accomplish  all  he  undertakes.  They  believed  that 
if  God  eternally  designed  that  the  death  of  His  Son  should  have  the 
same  relation  to,  and  effect  upon,  all  men,  it  will  have  the  same.  If 
Christ  died  with  the  same  design  to  save  all  men,  all  will  be  saved. 


57 

Thej  believed  it  to  be  a  denial  of  the  character  of  God,  and 
the  destruction  of  the  hopes  of  the  Church,  to  say  that  Christ, 
in  his  death,  had  just  as  much  intention  to  save  Judas  Iscariot  as 
the  Apostle  Paul.  This  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  sufficiency  or 
value  of  the  atonement,  which  all  admit  to  be  infinite ;  but  as  to 
the  eternal  'purpose  of  the  Father  as  executed  in  the  mission  of  the 
Son.  Eobinson  only  uttered  the  voice  of  Evangelical  Christendom 
when  he  said — "They  for  whom  Christ  died  never  perish."  To 
deny  this  "  impeacheth  God's  power,  and  makes  him  unable  (do 
what  he  can)  to  save  any  more  than  he  doth  save,  though  he  desire 
it  never  so  much."  (Works,  v.  1,  pp.  333,  334.)  The  Church  has 
always  understood  Christ  to  have  meant  something  when  he  said — 
"  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.''''  It  is  not  our  purpose  now, 
however,  to  argue  this  point.  We  are  simply  stating  the  doctrine 
of  the  New  England  standards  and  the  New  England  fathers. — 
That  they  held,  with  one  accord,  to  the  doctrine  of  a  definite  atone- 
ment, is  just  as  clear  as  that  they  held  to  any  atonement. 

VII,  Upon  the  Future  State,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  quote  the  ex- 
plicit language  of  the  Confession.  Until  recently  there  has  been 
no  diversity  of  sentiment  upon  this  subject  among  those  who  claim 
to  be  orthodox  Congregationalists, 

The  Confession  (chap.  31,  sec.  1)  says: 

"  The  bodies  of  men  after  death  return  to  dust,  and  see  corruption,  but  their  souls, 
(wbreh  neither  die  nor  sleep,)  having  an  immortal  subsistence,  immediately  return  to 
God  who  gave  them;  the  souls  of  the  righteous  being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and 
glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies ;  and  the  soul?  of  the  wicked  are 
cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torment,  and  utter  darkness,  reserved  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day  ;  besides  these  two  places  of  souls  separated  from  their  bodies,  the 
Scriptures  acknowledyeth  none." 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  upon  all  these  points  the  New  England 
churches  have  a  well  defined  and  positive  faith.  These  standards 
have  never  been  formally  renounced.  Nay,  it  is  claimed  that  they 
have  not  been  departed  from.  It  is  perfectly  fair,  therefore,  to  test 
the  faith  of  the  ministry  by  these  standards.  It  is  unfair  for  any 
man  to  reject  the  doctrines  of  these  standards  and  still  say  that  he 
holds  the  faith  in  which  the  New  England  churches  were  planted. 
Against  this  we  protest.  If  a  man  chooses  to  deny  these  doctrines, 
he  is  at  liberty  to  do  so ;  if  he  has  any  which  he  thinks  better,  it 
is  a  wonder  that  he  does  not  wish  to  proclaim  them ;  but  to  re- 
nounce the  old  faith  and  to  teach  doctrines  subversive  of  it,  and  still 
profess  before  the  people  to  cling  to  it,  is  what  we  can  not  reconcile 
with  good  faith. 

Judged  by  these  standards,  it  is  plain  that  the  doctrines  avowed 
and  endorsed  at  Hartford,  are  very  wide  departures  from  the  true 
faith  of  the  New  England  churches.  If  that  faith  is  scriptural 
and  safe,  this  is  unscriptural  and  perilous. 


58 

These  facts  show,  too,  how  uncandid  it  was  for  Drs.  Hawes  and 
Spring  to  dismiss  the  points  in  controversy,  with  one  exception,  as 
unessential,  or  as  constituting  the  debated  ground  between  Presby- 
terians and  Congregationalists.  If  the  points  were  unimportant 
at  last,  they  were  so  at  first ;  and  their  strong  denials  and  denun- 
ciations were  uncalled  for.  If  they  were  sufficiently  important  at 
first  to  demand  their  earnest  defence,  they  are  important  still,  and 
these  gentlemen  are  not  at  liberty  thus  to  dismiss  them. 

Nor  do  these  points  constitute  the  debatable  ground  between 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  as  such.  The  Confession  of 
Faith  shows  conclusively  that  the  doctrines  which  Mr.  Parker  de- 
nied, and  whose  denial  the  Council  endorsed,  are  a  part  of  the  pro- 
fessed faith  of  the  Congregational  churches  of  Connecticut.  They 
are  a  substantial  part  of  the  faith  in  which  the  churches  of  New 
England  were  founded.  If  they  are  now  disputed  ground  it  can 
only  be  because  some  among  us  have  departed  from  that  faith.  Let 
them  depart  if  it  must  be  so,  but  let  them  not  denounce  and  revile 
those  who  prefer  to  abide  in  the  faith  in  which  our  fathers  lived 
and  died.* 

*It  does  seem  to  us  time  we  were  done  with  the  miserable  attempts  to  forestall  the 
defence  of  truth  and  the  exposure  of  error,  by  the  perpetual  cry  of  "  Presbyterianism." 
The  simple  fact  is,  the  professed  doctrines  of  Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism 
are  identical.  The  doctrines  now  held  and  taught  in  the  Old  School  Presbyterian 
Church  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  precise  doctrines  of  the  New  England  stand- 
ards and  the  New  England  fathers.  To  denounce  and  ridicule  these  doctrines  is  to 
denounce  and  ridicule  the  original  faith  of  New  England.  To  overthrow  these  is  to 
overthrow  the  foundations  of  the  New  England  churches.  Let  us  understand  then 
what  those  men  are  doing  who  appeal  to  the  churches  by  the  outcry  of  "  Presbyterian- 
ism" and  "  Princetonism."  Let  us  understand  that  under  this  cover  the  battle  is  waged 
against  the  bulwarks  of  our  faith — against  the  foundations  of  the  true  New  England 
theology  and  of  the  word  of  God. 

It  deserves  to  be  said  that  our  fathers  had  none  of  this  jealousy  of  Presbyterianism. 
They  were  neither  afraid  nor  ashamed  of  the  name.  The  writer  has  before  him  two 
volumes  of  "  Sermons  by  Nathan  Strong ;  Pastor  of  the  North  Presbyterian  Church, 
in  Hartford,  Conn.,"  printed  in  1798-1800.  Dr.  Strong,  as  we  have  said,  was  the 
immediate  predecessor  of  Dr.  Hawes.  In  1799  the  Hartford  North  Association  of 
Ministers,  composed  of  such  men  as  Drs.  Strong  and  Flint  of  Hartford,  and  Dr.  Per- 
kins of  West  Hartford,  made  the  following  declaration  of  their  principles  : — 

"  This  Association  give  information  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  the  constitution  of  the  churches 
in  the  State  of  Connecticut,  founded  on  the  common  usages,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Heads  of 
Agreement,  and  articles  of  Church  Discipline,  adopted  at  the  earliest  period  of  the  settlement  of  the 
State,  is  not  Congregational,  but  contains  the  essentials  of  the  government  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
or  [<Ae]  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  ;  particularly  as  it  gives  a  decisive  power  to  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cils ;  and  a  consociation,  consisting  of  ministers  and  messengers,  or  a  lay  representation  from  the 
churches,  is  possessed  of  substantially  the  same  authority  as  Presbytery.  The  judgments,  decisions, 
and  censures  in  our  churches  and  in  the  Presbyterian  are  mutually  deemed  valid.  The  churches  there- 
fore, in  Connecticut  at  large,  and  in  our  district  in  particular,  are  7iot  noiv,  and  never  were,  from  the 
earliest  period  of  our  settlement  Congregational  cA«rcA«,  according  to  the  ideas  and  forms  of  church 
order  contained  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  called  the  Cambridge  Platform.  There  are,  however,  scat- 
tered over  the  State,  perhaps  ten  or  twelve  churches  (unconsociated)  which  are  properly  called  Con- 
gregational, agreeably  to  the  rules  of  Church  Discipline,  in  the  book  above  mentioned.  Sometimes  in- 
deed, the  associated  churches  of  Connecticut  are  loosely  and  vaguely,  though  improperly  termed 
Congregational.  While  our  churches  in  the  State  at  large  are,  in  the  most  essential  and  important 
respects,  the  same  as  the  Presbyterian,  still  in  minute  and  unimportant  points  of  church  order  and 
discipline,  both  we  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  acknowledge  a  difference." 

According  to  this  testimony  the  true  and  proper  form  of  the  Connecticut  churches 
is  Presbyterian,  and  not  Congregational.  And  can  any  man  doubt  where  Drs,  Strong 
and  Perkins  would  have  stood  at  such  a  time  as  this  ?  Would  they  have  opposed 
sound  Presbyterianism  for  the  sake  of  unsound  Congregationalism? 


59 

We  submit  these  pages  to  our  brethren  in  the  churches  and  min- 
istry of  JSTew  England.  We  only  ask  for  them  a  candid  consider- 
ation. We  have  written  as  we  have  solemnly  believed  the  truth 
and  the  highest  interests  of  the  church  demanded.  If  the  fears 
expressed  shall  prove  unfounded,  no  man  will  rejoice  more  than  the 
writer.  But  let  us  not  forget  that  apostasy  from  the  faith  always 
comes  in  gradually.  Here  is  our  peril.  "Giving  up  one  truth," 
says  Dr.  Strong,  "is  only  preparing  the  way  to  give  up  another." 
The  whole  history  of  the  Church  proves  it.  Every  great  and  fatal 
defection  from  the  faith  follows  this  law.  First  one  truth  is  given 
up,  then  another,  and  another,  until  shipwreck  has  been  made  of 
the  whole  Christian  system.  Can  we  claim  exemption  from  this 
law  ?  Is  it  sure,  because  we  have  the  Puritan  for  our  father,  that 
we  can  never  be  given  up  to  the  rejection  of  the  Puritan  faith? 
Glance  back  for  a  few  years.  Does  any  man  believe  that  fifty  years 
ago  the  ordination  of  a  man  holding  such  views  as  Mr.  Parker's 
could  have  taken  place  in  the  city  of  Hartford  ?  Would  Dr.  Hawes 
have  been  ordained  avowing  such  sentiments?  Could  a  Council 
have  been  found  who  would  have  hesitated  for  an  instant  to  refuse 
ordination  in  such  a  case  ?  This  is  a  great  change  to  take  place  in 
a  single  generation.  And  now  what  is  the  prospect  for  the  future? 
When  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  are  in  their  graves,  and  such  men 
as  these  whom  they  are  now  placing  over  other  churches,  are  gath- 
ered" to  ordain  their  successors,  what  manner  of  ordination  shall  it 
be  ?  Whom  would  these  men  not  ordain  ?  Whom  would  they 
reject?  We  put  the  case  solemnly  to  these  venerable  fathers. 
Their  work  must  soon  close.  Surely  it  is  something  to  them  what 
is  to  be  the  destiny  of  the  churches  they  leave  behind  them. 

Dr.  Hawes  closes  his  letter  of  reconciliation  to  Dr.  Bushnell  in 
these  words :  "  Sure  I  am  that  my  sun  will  go  down  brighter,  and  I 
shall  leave  this  much  loved  field  of  my  labors  and  my  prayers  with 
a  happier  mind  and  more  cheerful  hopes,  if,  as  I  close  my  course,  I 
may  think  of  these  dear  churches  of  our  Lord  as  rooted  and  ground- 
ed in  the  truth,  and  their  pastors  as  happily  united  in  fellowship 
and  love,  and  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints."     {Religious  Herald,  June  1,  1854.) 

By  all  the  force  of  this  impressive  declaration,  we  appeal  to  this 
venerable  man  to  lend  his  influence  for  the  brief  remnant  of  his 
days,  to  secure  the  issue  he  so  earnestly  desires,  by  securing  for  the 
churches  pastors  "rooted  and  grounded  in  the  truth,"  and  willing 
to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

Here  we  dismiss  the  subject.  We  have  no  desire  for  contro- 
versy for  its  own  sake.  We  would  not  needlessly  offend  one  of 
our  brethren  in  Christ.  New  England  is  dear  to  us,  and  will  be 
while  we  live.  Here  are  the  homes  and  the  graves  of  our  fathers ; 
and  here,  if  God  will,  we  wait  our  own  charge.  We  protest  against 


60 

the  unjust  clamor  that  we  are  hostile  to  New  England  and  her 
faith.  We  yield  to  no  man  in  all  due  love  to  the  land  of  our  birth. 
We  believe  most  firmly  and  heartily  in  her  glorious  old  faith.  We 
believe  it  to  be  "the  faith  of  God's  elect ;"  and  because  we  believe  so  ; 
and  because  we  believe  that  faith  is  in  peril ;  because  we  believe  the 
future  welfare  and  glory  of  New  England  are  wrapped  in  it ;  be- 
cause we  believe  her  woe  and  shame  lie  in  its  rejection,  we  plead 
for  its  deliverance. 

And  that  deliverance,  we  are  fally  assured,  will  come.  If  it 
tarry  we  will  wait  for  it ;  but  that  it  will  come,  sooner  or  later,  we 
have  no  more  doubt  than  we  have  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall 
cover  the  earth.  This  is  the  strong  consolation  of  those  who,  now, 
amidst  opposition  and  reproach,  contend  for  the  faith  delivered  to 
the  saints.  Error  may  triumph  for  a  time  ;  but  in  its  own  nature, 
and  in  the  falfilment  of  God's  glorious  promises  to  the  Church,  it 
must  perish.     The  word  of  the  Lord  abideth  forever. 


THE  MANCHESTER  CASE. 

THE      ORDINATION      OF      MR.      DOR  MAN.* 

After  the  substance  of  the  preceding  pages  had  been  prepared, 
an  event  occurred  which  casts  important  light  upon  the  facts  of 
the  above  case. 

On  the  31st  of  May,  1860,  a  Council  was  called  to  ordain  and  in- 
stall Mr.  L.  M.  Dorman  as  pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  in 
Manchester,  Ct.  Mr.  Dorman  had  been  licensed  to  preach  by  the 
Third  (New  School)  Presbytery  of  New  York,  about  two  years 
before.  It  deserves  to  be  said,  however,  that  at  his  ordination  he 
refused  to  give  his  assent,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

"  The  following  ministers  were  jDresent  at  the  Council,  with  four 
or  five  delegates :  Eev.  Dr.  Calhoun,  of  Coventry ;  Kev.  Messrs. 
Cheeseboro,  of  Glastenbury ;  Snow,  of  Eastbury ;  L.  Hyde,  of  Yer- 
non ;  S.  B.  Forbes  and  H.  Day  of  North  Manchester.  .  .  .  The 
body,  though  small,  embraced  representatives  of  the  two  schools  of 
New  England  Theology. 

*  The  facts  in  regard  to  this  case  are  derived  from  the  Hartford  Daily  Times  and  the 
Boston  Recorder.  The  article  in  the  former  was  evidently  written  by  some  one  friendly 
to  Mr.  Dorman.  The  articles  of  the  Recorder  appeared,  one  fJuly  12,)  over  the  sig- 
nature "  H.  R.  ;"  the  other,  (Aug.  9,)  signed  by  Rev.  G.  A.  Oviatt,  Scribe  of  the  Coun- 
cil which  settled  Mr.  Dorman.  The  correctness  of  the  statements  has  not  been  called 
in  question. 


61 

The  examination  proved  unsatisfactory.  The  lax  views  of  the 
candidate  on  inspiration,  election,  depravity,  and  above  all,  pro- 
bation after  death,  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  Council  to  proceed. 
In  this  judgment  they  were  imanimous."  The  result  is  thus  sta- 
ted in  the  Hartford  Times^  of  June  2d : 

"  The  Congregational  Society  in  Manchester  is  quite  excited  over  the  action  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Council  which  met  in  that  place  on  Thursday,  to  ordain  the  new  pastor 
chosen  by  the  Society,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dorman.  Although  the  Society  (a  large  and  im- 
portant one,)  are  unanimous  for  Mr.  Dorman,  yet  the  Council  refused  to  ordain  him. 
The  alleged  reason  was,  that  in  his  examination  they  had  obliged  him,  by  close  ques 
tioning,  to  admit  that  he  was  not  clear  in  his  own  mind  on  certain  doctrinal  points. 
These  points  (which,  we  believe,  relate  to  certain  accepted  but  abstruse  and  little-under- 
stoo'd  notions  concerning  the  exact  nature  of  the  Trinity,  &c.,)  are  not  considered  by 
Mr.  D.'s  friends  as  being  in  any  sense  vital,  or  affecting  in  any  degree  his  standing  as 
an  orthodox  believer  in  the  essential  points  of  the  New  England  creed.  They  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  on  which  Dr.  Vermilye  and  other  disciples  of  the  rigid  old  East  Wind- 
sor school  of  theology  opposed  the  ordination  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Parker,  of  the  Hartford 
South  Church,  last  January ;  and  it  is  maintained  by  Mr.  Dorman's  friends  that  the 
delegates  who  composed  the  Council,  were  influenced  in  their  unexpected  action,  by  a 
re  luctance  to  override  Dr.  Vermilye's  precedent  on  that  occasion.  It  was  not  a  full 
Council ;  and  the  Society,  as  soon  as  the  decision  was  announced,  at  once  gave  notice 
of  anotlier  meeting  on  Monday,  to  call  another  Council.  They  expect  the  second  Coun- 
cil will  act  in  a  less  arbitrary  and  illiberal  spirit,  and  ordain  the  minister  they  want. 
If  not,  Jhey  are  determined  to  have  him  at  any  rate,  and  will  take  measures  to  accom- 
p  lish  their  object  without  the  agency  of^the  Council." 

A  second  Council  was  called,  and  met  on  the  6th  of  June — within 
less  than  a  week  from  the  adjournment  of  the  first.  This  "Council 
consisted  of  Dr.  Hawes,  and  Eev.  Messrs.  Parker,  Webber,  and 
Burton  of  Hartford,  and  Dr.  Spring  of  East  Hartford,  and  Rev. 
Messrs.  Cheeseboro  of  Glastenbury,  Oviatt  of  Somers,  Fessenden 
of  Ellington,  Clapp  of  Rockville,  and  Forbes  of  North  Manches- 
ter, with  delegates  sufficient  to  make  the  whole  number  in  attend- 
ance twenty."  Dr.  Hawes  was  chosen  moderator,  and  took  the 
leading  part  in  the  examination.  A  correspondent  of  the  Recorder 
(H.  R.)  thus  reports : 

"The  Moderator  and  his  associates  were  not  a  little  troubled  to  ascertain  what  Mr. 
Dorman  believed  on  some  important  points,  and  some  of  them  were  still  more  troubled 
by  his  explicit  avowals  on  other  points. 

On  the  question  whether  the  Gospel  will  be  offered  to  any  of  the  human  race  in  the 
future  world  who  die  impenitent,  the  candidate  was  more  reserved  than  when  before 
the  first  Council,  but  there  was  no  retraction  or  essential  modification  of  the  views 
then  expressed.  He  admitted  no  connection  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  sin  and 
ruin  ©f  his  posterity  except  what  he  was  pleased  to  state  thus  : — "Adam  set  a  very 
bad  example."  The  Bible  was  written  only  in  part  by  inspiration  of  God.  By  elec- 
tion we  are  to  understand  simply,  that  God  foresaw  who  would  accept  the  Gospel,  and 
them  he  determined  to  save.  He  thought  it  probable,  and  after  much  questioning  he 
was  almost  confident,  that  all  true  believers  will  persevere  in  holiness  and  be  finally 


62 

saved.  On  the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees  the  answers  were  so  singular  that  Dr.  Hawes 
referred  the  candidate  to  his  license,  which  certified  his  assent  to  the  creed  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  But  he  declined  giving  his  assent,  at  Manchester,  to  the  doc- 
trine in  question  as  laid  down  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Eaith.  The  Modera- 
tor then  produced  the  creed  of  the  church  over  which  it  was  proposed  to  ordain  him. 
He  was  understood  to  dissent  positively  from  the  Manchester  Confession,  also,  respect- 
iag  the  decrees  of  God."  ' 

Eev.  Mr.  Oviatt,  who  was  certainly  not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Dor- 
man  or  the  Council  says : 

"  During  the  early  part  of  the  examination,  Mr.  Dorraan  appeared  tolerably  well ; 
during  the  latter  part,  far  otherwise.  To  many  of  the  leading  questions,  his  answers 
were  very  equivocal,  certainly  "non-committal."  I  remember  distinctly  the  questions 
I  put  to  him,  and  his  answers  thereto,  almost  word  for  word.  I  will  give  them  in  sub- 
stance, and  nearly  verbatim,  without  the  quotation  marks.  What  is  election  ? — 
Answer. — I  suppose  God's  choosing  some.  Why  does  God  choose  some  ?  Answer. 
I  cannot  tell.  I  sometimes  lean  to  the  opinion  that  God  chooses  some  for  reasons 
best  known  to  himself,  and  sometimes  I  lean  to  the  opinion  that  God  chooses  whom 
he  does,  because  he  foresees  that  they  will  repeat  and  believe  in  Christ  ;  and  therefore 
he  elects  them.  I  read  the  article  in  the  "Confession  of  Faith"  of  the  Church  in 
Manchester,  on  election,  and  asked  the  candidate  how  he  would  expound  it|in  a  ser- 
mon, should  his  people  request  him  to  preach  on  this  doctrine.  Answer. — I  don't 
know ;  I  am  studying  the  Bible  to  find  out.  With  regard  to  [probation,  I  asked 
him,  do  you  or  do  you  not  believe  that  the  probation  of  all  men  ends  at  death  ? — 
Answer. — I  cannot  tell.  God  will  give  all  men  a  fair  chance.  Faith  in  Christ  is 
necessary  to  salvation.  There  may  be  some,  I  sometimes  think,  who,  not  naving  a 
sufficient  knowledge  of  Christ  in  this  world,  will  have  an  offer  of  pardon  after 
death.  I  am  not  satisfied  on  this  subject.  About  it  I  have  my  doubts.  I  don't  know 
that  any  to  whom  I  may  ever  preach  in  this  land,  will  be  amoug  the  number  of 
those  who  have  another  chance  after  death.  I  asked,  On  what  texts  do  you  ground 
the  belief  of  a  probation  for  any,  after  death  ?  Answer. — "All  manner  of  sin  and 
blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men."  &c. 

The  license  to  preach,  given  to  him  by  (I  think)  the  Third  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  which  specifies  that  he  in  his  examination  by  that  body  assented  to  the  "Confes- 
sion of  Faith,"  was  read,  when  the  Moderator  asked  him,  De  you  now  believe  as  you 
did  at  the  time  this  license  was  given  to  you  ?  Answer. — I  don't  know  but  I  do.  Do 
you  believe  in  the  main,  in  the  Assembly's  Catechism "?  Answer. — I  don't  know.  I 
don't  know  much  about  the  Catechism.  With  regard  to  the  "Perseverance  of  the 
Saints,"  the  candidate  was  equivocal,  undetermined  in  his  answers.  All  thi'ough 
the  examination,  the  candidate  was,  in  respect  to  many  leading,  fundamental  doctrines 
thus  indefinite  in  his  statements  :  seldom  answering  a  question  definitely,  distinctly. 

I  was  unwilling  to  ordain  and  install  Mr.  Dorman  ;  to  me,  the  way  was  not  open 
thus  to  proceed  for  these  reasons  : — 1.  I  seriously  thought  Mr.  Dorman  unsound  in 
iAe/aiVA,  in  some  essential  particulars .  2.  I  thought  he  was  too  undetermined  in  his 
faith,  was  too  full  of  doubts,  leaned  in  too  many  different  directions  to  be  set  over 
the  church  in  Manchester." 

The  examination  lasted  from  three  to  four  hours,  and  resulted  in 
a  vote,  by  a  majority  of  four,  to  proceed  to  the  ordination.  On 
this  majority  were  Dr.  Hawes,   Dr.  Spring,   and  Mr.  Parker;  the 


63 

latter  gentleman,  having  exerted  himself  earnestly  to  secure  the 
result ;  and  "on  giving  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  assured  the 
pastor  that  he  voted  for  him  most  cordiallyy  When  the  decision 
had  been  reached,  part  of  the  Council  withdrew,  and  the  rest  pro- 
ceeded to  the  ordination. 

The  above  we  believe  is  a  mild  statement  of  the  case.  Mr.  Ovi- 
att's  report,  we  have  reason  to  suppose,  was  intended  to  be  as  favor- 
able to  Mr.  Dorman  and  the  Council  as  it  could  fairly  be.  He  con- 
fines himself  chiefly  to  that  part  of  the  examination  which  he  him- 
self conducted.  No  reply  has  been  made  to  any  of  the  reports. 

In  view  of  this  case,  it  may  be  observed — 

1.  It  abundantly  confirms  the  statements  made  in  regard  to  the 
Hartford  ordination.  Those  who  felt  constrained  to  condemn  the 
action  of  the  Council  in  that  case  could  ask  no  more  complete  jus- 
tification than  is  furnished  here, 

2.  It  illustrates  strikingly  the  point  made  in  the  preceding  review, 
in  regard  to  future  danger,  (p.  59).  It  answers,  in  part,  the  ques- 
tion, "Whom  would  these  men  not  ordain  ?"  Mr.  Parker  can  work 
earnestly,  and  ^^Yotemost  cordially''^  for  the  ordination  of  a  man 
whom  one  Council  has  rejected  unanimously,  and  in  regard  to  whom 
the  greater  part  even  of  the  Council  which  ordained  him,  are  "  per- 
plexed" and  "dissatisfied."     Is  there  no  downward  process  here ? 

Oae  of  the  correspondents  of  the  Recorder  states,  that  at  the  ex- 
amination of  Mr.  Dorman,  "  a  member  of  the  Manchester  Church 
expressed  his  concern  at  finding  that  certain  young  preachers  hold 
that  salvation  will  be  offered  to  some  who  die  impenitent."  "A 
theological  student,"  with  whom  he  was  conversing,  "  assured  Mm 
that  'most  of  his  associates  in  professional  study  adopted  that  o'pinion^ 
The  correspondent  asks  with  point,  "Is  this  one  of  the  signs  of  the 
times?" 

3.  This  case  cannot  be  met  by  the  cry  of  "  Presbyterianism." 
The  witnesses  have  not  "  looked  from  a  Presbyterian  stand-point." 
They  are  all  Congregationalists ;  and  so  gross  was  the  case  that 
Congregationalists  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Schools,  had  "  no  di- 
versity of  opinion  touching  the  examination  of  Mr.  Dorman." 
Defenders  of  Dr.  Bushnell  coidd  not  vote  for  a  man  whom  Drs.  Hawes 
and  Spring  could  ordain  ! 

4.  Doctrinally  the  case  was  substantially  like  that  at  Hartford. 
This  appears  not  only  from  the  reports,  but  from  the  thorough  en- 
dorsement of  Mr.  Dorman  by  Mr.  Parker.  It  is  hardly  conceivable 
that  Mr.  Parker  could  have  "  voted  most  cordially  "  for  Mr.  Dor- 
man, if  he  had  not  cordially  sympathized  with  him.  It  throws, 
therefore,  a  decisive  light  upon  the  Hartford  ordination.  It  settles 
Mr.  Parker's  position.  It  shows  what  such  fathers  of  the  Church 
as  Drs.  Hawes  and  Spring  mean  by  "  orthodoxy."  To  say  that  "  the 
Bible  is  written  only  in  part  by  inspiration  " — to  deny  original  sin — 
to  be  all  unsettled  in  regard  to  election,  the  perseverance  of  the 


/ 


64 

saints,  and  the  future  state  of  those  dying  out  of  Christ — to  be 
wholly  indefinite  and  ignorant  "in  respect  to  many  leading, /wwc?a- 
mental  doctrines  " — to  hold  views  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Con- 
gregational Confession  of  Faith,  and  with  the  Articles  of  the  church 
over  which  a  man  seeks  ordination ;  all  this,  in  the  judgment  of 
these  venerable  men,  is  not  inconsistent  with  good  standing  in  the 
orthodox  Congregational  ministry.  This  is  an  important  point  for 
the  churches  to  understand.  It  is  a  point  that  is  now  settled  beyond 
controversy.  Its  bearing  upon  the  preceding  discussion  is  obvious. 
5.  It  is  a  remarkable  case  in  ecclesiastical  order.  Here  is  a  can- 
didate who  rejects  not  only  the  common  standards  of  Congregation- 
alism, but  the  particular  Articles  of  the  Church  over  which  he  is 
to  be  settled — a  man  so  thoroughly  unsound  that  a  Council  of  Old 
and  New  School  men  unanimously  refuse  to  ordain  him :  another 
Council  is  immediately  called,  and  in  the  face  of  the  former  Council, 
proceed  to  the  ordination !  A  regular  Congregational  Council  de- 
clares a  man  unqualified  for  the  Congregational  ministry :  within 
less  than  a  week  from  that  time,  this  man,  by  the  action  of  another 
Congregational  Council,  is  in  fuU  and  regular  standing  in  that  min- 
istry !  Is  this  the  legitimate  working  of  the  system  ?  If  so,  we 
agree  fully  with  Dr.  Hawes,  that  "  there  must  be  a  change,  or  we 
shall  lose  our  hold  upon  the  conservative  and  the  thoughtful,  and 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  rash  and  the  radical." 


^ 


